Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA

2024 Requests for adminship review

Status as of 01:22 (UTC), Monday, 11 November 2024 ()

Discussion about refining proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and require links for claims of specific policy violations. --19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! This is the discussion subpage about refinining two proposals from Phase I of RFA2024: Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Proposal 9b: Require links for claims of specific policy violations. The discussion close of Proposal 2 by Nagol0929 is as follows:

I find that there is consensus for there to be a reminder of civility implemented at RfA. However there is not a clear consensus on the exact wording of the reminder. The exact wording of the reminder shall be discussed in phase 2.

The support group mainly relies on the arguement that this would be a low cost way to potentially cause greater civility to RfA. Some in the support group also claim that this could cause non admins to enforce this when admins or bureaucrats are WP:INVOLVED.

Those in the oppose group make somewhat compelling arguments. These range from that trolling at Rfa helps gauge a candidate to that this would cause participants to be hesitant to oppose. Some in the oppose group also argue that because WP:CIVILITY applies everywhere, there is no need for a reminder at RfA.

Overall the oppose groups arguments are rendered null by either discussions under said opposes or by supports countering them. This is why I find that the oppose arguments are not compelling enough to create consensus against.

I welcome any feedback to this close as this is my first significant close.

The discussion close of 9b by ToadetteEdit is as follows:

Clear consensus to require diffs for claims of specific policy violations.

The original, draft wording of the civility reminder is below:

Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors may not make allegations of improper conduct without evidence.

Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

Open discussion

• I think the language is fine as is. The change in wording from proposals 9 to 9b is reasonable because it imposed extra requirements on RfA behavior; this is a reminder of current civility policy, not a venue to change it, and current policy does not limit the definition of "aspersions" to only accusations of policy violations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• I agree that the original proposal is acceptable. It could be more forceful and more concise, but I couldn't formulate a better wording myself. Toadspike (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• How about being a little more specific with the second sentence? Eg "Editors may not make allegations of improper conduct unless it is evidenced with diffs in the same post. Allegations lacking such diffs will be removed." Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  How about Editors may not make allegations of specific policy violations without linking to diffs.? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  +1 – Hilst [talk] 14:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's a narrower construction than it should be – editors shouldn't be casting aspersions, period. We have an extra requirement for allegations of policy breach, but it is just extra. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's the consensus at 9b (see Tryptofish's oppose and the amount of supporters who included something like with the change that only specific policy violations require diffs) that misconduct outside of policy violations shouldn't be outlawed. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  I see some opposes on 9b that misconduct shouldn't be outlawed, but that's not consensus. The proposal changed early enough to adjust for the opposes, but there is nothing to say 'misconduct outside of policy violations' cannot be proposed here or gain consensus here. Soni (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  6 editors explicitly supported Tryptofish's reasoning, with one comment that Otherwise, I worry that there will be endless RfCs about what does and doesn't count as requiring a diff., and only 1 (or maybe two) who opposed Tryptofish's reasoning. There were a total of 15 supporters, so I think that does count as consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu: no, that proposal is separate. Casting aspersions is still a wiki-wide no-no – 9b found a consensus to impose extra requirements on a specific subset of allegations. I would have absolutely opposed 9b if anyone ever said "and hey, just so you know, this carves out an RfA-based exception to user conduct policy". That can't happen with some 25 people in a sub-RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, leeky, Aaron Liu has it right, and I support his proposed revision. If you want a broader discussion to establish a clearer consensus, then here at Phase 2 is the place to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Too excessive, imo, with the removal part. — hako9 (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• This doesn't address the core "problem" at RfA - one-off actions or misinterpretations of policy, particularly in areas where the candidate has not been active, used as justification for them not being given access to any part of the sysop kit. Pre-2008 there was some understanding that learning on the job is possible and so long as someone has displayed maturity and competence in some areas, they will probably be able to figure out other things as they come up. Now the expectation is that candidates must be perfect (or, at least, that no recent mistakes are unearthed during their RfA) in order to pass. This is a problem to the extent that the community thinks it is, hence the quotes. Truly incivil comments are relatively rare at RfA, and these sort of proposals will probably just further drive people who already want to oppose to find small things to nitpick as a justification. No problem will be solved here. All that said, original wording works for me. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's true that this won't address the real problem. As I said in Phase 1, good potential RfA candidates who decline to be nominated aren't doing it because they are afraid that someone will be incivil, or even that someone will claim something without linked evidence. The problem is that everyone who has been here long enough will have something, somewhere, that can be dredged up and made into a bigger deal that it really is, and some editors will pile on to it. I think these proposals (2 and 9b) suffer from virtue-signaling – civility is better than incivility, and there's too much incivility everywhere on Wikipedia – but all they'll really accomplish is to encourage badgering of opposes, a real problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, nail on head. – Teratix ₵ 14:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Is there established thought on mentioning and linking to the meta:Universal Code of Conduct? I know it is still new, but the Wikimedia Foundation has invested and plans to invest a lot of money into this. English Wikipedia already has conduct processes, but that code is well designed, has votes backing it, and has infrastructure developing around it for mediation and misconduct reporting. Right now it is just text and not the extra services, so is the text enough to merit inclusion? Bluerasberry (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• I think it's worth taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Elli#The oppose itself for a current example of editors dealing with these kinds of issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Build your own civility warning

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a rough consensus to adopt proposal 5. No consensus developed to require the use of diffs, as suggested by proposal 1. Proposal 2 received minimal comment with one editor later suggesting proposals 4 and 4a, one editor later !voting for proposal 5, and one editor opposing. Proposal 3 also did not develop consensus. Editors pointed out that the proposal was too vague, and there was no consensus as to the precise wording to be adopted. Proposal 5 was a fork of proposal 4, and proposal 4a was a fork of proposal 5. After extended discussion, both under proposal 5 and under the previous proposals, and revision thereafter to address reasonable objections, several editors supported proposal 5. Thus, there is a rough consensus for that proposal. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Build your own civility warning, using a level three heading (e.g. === Proposal 1 by HouseBlaster===), taking into account the points raised in the discussion above. All editors should feel free to comment below the warning, suggesting improvements.

Proposal 1 by Aaron Liu

Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors who make allegations of specific policy violations must link to relevant, specific evidence such as diffs or logs.

Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

Slight modification to incorporate consensus to require diffs for specific violations. I wonder if we need to qualify diffs as relating to the violation, or if that is too obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Note that the underlining will not be reproduced; that is simply an artifact of me invoking the "ins" HTML element, which tells you that this text was added later. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that inserting "them" does any harm. Or even also adding "relevant". The less scope for wikilewering the better, and 12 additional characters seems a modest price for clarity. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, relevant is a good word! I've added it. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I support this, if we're going to have such language at all. It covers the things that actually concern members of the community, without overreaching in the way that the language in the general discussion does. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This wording seems unduly fixated on diffs. Not everything needs a diff. For example:

1. Oppose in their opening answers the user mentions Greepie, Flooble and Yarble as articles they are proud of writing recently, but looking at the logs they have all been deleted as copyright violations.
2. Oppose this editor's username contains an anti-Luxembourgish slur, see our article on whubsy.
3. Oppose this editor harassed me at a meetup, I wouldn't be comfortable with them as an administrator.

would all be valid reasons to oppose an RfA and should be allowed even though they don't link diffs. Casting aspersions is about alleging misbehaviour without evidence, not without diffs. They are certainly a common and convenient form of evidence, but they are not the only such form. – Teratix ₵ 14:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Link the diff to where the copyvio issue was first raised or the relevant Wikipedia:Copyright problems page.
2. This user would be blocked already. If not, it isn't a policy violation, but a matter of the opposer just not liking the username.
3. This is a good point. Maybe unless evidence with private information is mailed to ArbCom?

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Evidence mailed to ArbCom for a simple oppose vote in an Rfa? — hako9 (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a precedent. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This is someone saying they have evidence against an editor for meatpuppetry and not following it up. If someone opposes a candidate for say, less than perfect conduct at a meetup, it shouldn't be the case of diffs or didn't happen. — hako9 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"Less than perfect" is not a specific policy violation, but harassment is. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Substitute less than perfect conduct with say, awful conduct. I think an editor should be able to oppose a candidate saying they disliked the candidate's conduct during a meetup, without being asked to provide evidence and getting their vote or rationale stricken because of WP:ASPERSIONS. Compromise would be, Editors are encouraged not make allegations of specific policy violations without linking to relevant diffs or other evidence. — hako9 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Should the opposer really be obliged to do so on pain of having their comment removed? Would that comment, as written, really qualify as casting aspersions? The redlinks provided will link to the deletion logs, which surely count as evidence?
2. It's certainly bold to assume the username policy is accurately and comprehensively enforced 100% of the time with absolutely no exceptions or grey areas, ever. There's been at least one RfA where an offensive username has been an issue.

But I'm not really interested in litigating the specific examples. The point is to demonstrate requiring diffs in particular is unreasonable and goes beyond what is laid out in the guideline on casting aspersions, which only requires evidence. Look, I'll give two more:

1. Oppose this editor's userpage is entirely dedicated to anti-Ecuadorian screeds.
2. Oppose this editor self-identifies on their userpage as TwitterUser123, who tweets personal attacks (link) on other editors.

– Teratix ₵ 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes. I'd also accept logs, but in most cases diffs should be preferred. How about without linking to relevant, specific evidence such as diffs and logs?
2. If you want to enforce the username policy, report the username to WP:UAA. RfA is not the place for actual username policy violations. Diffless objections based on not liking the name are still allowed, though I doubt that such arguments would find consensus.
As for linking to the user page, why not link to the latest diff? I agree that linking would suffice in such cases, but these are edge cases too rare to warrant a change to the general rule. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there's validity to the argument that we should be less focused on diffs. The proposal at the top of this page says in part, "Editors may not make allegations of improper conduct without evidence." On this proposal, I'd support changing "Editors may not make allegations of specific policy violations without linking to relevant diffs" to "Editors may not make allegations of specific policy violations without evidence".

Let me parse out what I'm thinking there. I oppose the language at the top of this page, because there are many kinds of valid RfA oppose rationales that are self-explanatory and really don't become invalid or disruptive if they lack links to evidence. There are examples of those just above. (I also think that the language at the top of the page has an Easter egg link, by linking "allegations of improper conduct" to WP:Casting aspersions, and that got carried over to here, so I suggest unlinking that.) So I prefer the language in this section, because it focuses on "allegations of specific policy violations". I can get behind saying that such violations require evidence. But it's true that such evidence doesn't always have to come in the form of diffs.

I feel very strongly that Phase 1 of these discussions moved too quickly to establish that we supposedly need to clamp down on frivolous criticisms at RfA, and Phase 2 needs to look more closely before we do more harm than good. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am most supportive of this "without linking to relevant, specific evidence, such as diffs and logs" modification to the original reminder. Many here argue that opposes can be based on issues without clear links, but when it is possible to provide links to evidence, the act of preparing it increases the thoughtfulness of the phrasing, supporting both civility and reasonable assessment of whether the cited issues justify the oppose vote. @Teratix's example of opposing on the basis of an in-person interaction is compelling, but even if we adopted this evidence requirement, the community would surely accept a severe in-person allegation under a reasonable interpretation of WP:IAR BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 22:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Can we change "Editors may not make" to "Editors who make ... must". Since we are trying to be welcoming, I prefer to invite people to do things rather than prohibit the opposite. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'll wait a day to see if there are any objections. Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I like Bluerasberry's suggestion here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Implemented. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• "Diffs or logs" rather than "diffs and logs" makes it clearer that they're not both required. I know they're only examples, but "or" removes the possibility of confusion. BoldGnome (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Edited. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2 by RoySmith

I think it's worth looking at the example at WP:VPW for inspiration. It's a similar concept; these are both forums where it's technicalliy not necessary to make such a statement since the requirement for civility exists without it, but past experience shows that a little extra reminder wouldn't hurt. So maybe something like:

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing a user's request for sysop privileges. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of the candidate are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users will be met with sanctions.

This is an alternative approach that could work. I like that, for the most part, it steers clear of language about "X" will result in sanctions, when "X" can be wikilawyered to include good-faith reasons for opposing. For that reason, I'm ambivalent about the last sentence. True personal attacks are, I agree, what we don't want – but let's not set up a scenario where "I don't trust the candidate" is treated as a "personal attack". I'm not sure that every perceived personal attack in an RfA should automatically lead to a sanction, as opposed to redaction or something else that is short of a block or ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a little eerie how that text can be translated so easily to fit RfA. I would prefer one support one of the shorter options. I feel like "While grievances, complaints, or criticism of the candidate are frequently posted here" would simply encourage/normalize those things. The first sentence doesn't seem necessary. I do like the last two sentences. I would modify the last one to read "Personal attacks and unsubstantiated aspersions, as that seems to be a big worry. Toadspike (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This is far too long and would trigger banner blindness. – Teratix ₵ 13:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 3 by Teratix

This RfA candidate and the editors commenting here are human. Be decent. Ordinary conduct policies and guidelines apply.

More concise. – Teratix ₵ 07:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I think the behavior we are trying to prevent requires more than "be decent". Toadspike (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Elaborate explanations of what "be decent" means in practice belong in the policies and guidelines themselves. The message's purpose is to jolt people into remembering these exist, not to explain their implications. The message should be as plain and short as possible. A longer message would be swallowed up by banner blindness. – Teratix ₵ 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "be decent" suffers from vagueness. In a sense, I think we are discovering here that the perceived need for Rules against certain kinds of opposes has been overstated. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Love this. — hako9 (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The point of this reminder, for me, is that admins and 'crats should be able to point to the big posted sign and say "you have no excuse for thinking writing that was okay". A vague "be decent" gives too much plausible deniability, whereas I think the original wording doesn't leave that wiggle room. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

My impression is editors outright feigning ignorance of civility policies is not at all a problem at RfA and I would be surprised if you could point me to specific incidents. – Teratix ₵ 03:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Can we raise the bar from "decent" to either "friendly" or "nice"? Bluerasberry (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Polite? Seems either more natural or more professional than each of the other options.Sincerely, Dilettante 00:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is sometimes good to be neither friendly nor nice at RfA. Here's an example:

  • A new-ish but not TOOSOON editor submits a nomination. If successful, they will focus on using the tools for antivandalism and AfD work.
  • They are a popular, sociable editor and have already amassed 50 supporters on reputation alone. No-one has opposed yet.
  • The editor has already made a reasonable amount of non-admin closes at AfD. However, you notice a good deal of them have problems – in particular, they often amount to supervotes for keep in close discussions a non-administrator probably shouldn't be closing in the first place.
  • You post a question about a sample of the closes; they politely acknowledge they got those closes wrong, but say they were honest mistakes that don't reflect their broader track record.
  • You privately agree they probably were honest mistakes but think they are, in fact, representative of their broader track record.
  • If you oppose the RfA this will draw greater attention to these closures. You are confident the issue is severe enough there is a high chance it would attract enough opposition to sway the result.
  • Your private assessment is the editor would be absolutely devastated by a failed RfA and take it as a sign the community didn't want them around, even if counselled otherwise.

  The nice and friendly thing to do would be to stay quiet and let the RfA run its course. But the decent thing to do would be to oppose. – Teratix ₵ 02:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am really surprised to see you list such things. Of course all those people need an intervention, and I do not see how niceness could prevent anyone from intervening.

  The needed action in those cases is telling the person no, pointing out errors, giving feedback even if it disappoints, and otherwise applying our rules and system to the situation in a direct manner. "Niceness" to me does not mean bending or bypassing rules and norms, but it seems that it does to you. "Decency" to me does not mean doing the necessary thing.

  Perhaps polite, or perhaps "Be civil", since that already is an established term? Perhaps "Behave with good conduct", since we have a code of conduct? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Of course all those people need an intervention, and I do not see how niceness could prevent anyone from intervening Because the intervention is not nice. It will devastate the user and make them and their supporters upset.

  "Niceness" to me does not mean bending or bypassing rules and norms, but it seems that it does to you. I don't have the faintest idea how you managed to infer that from the post. "Niceness", to me, means pleasant, friendly, agreeable behaviour that eases rather than upsets people. To me, "decency" means respectful, reasonable behaviour motivated by an honest attitude. What do these terms mean to you?

  I believe "be civil" and "be polite" are importantly different from "be decent". Someone can be civil and polite but unreasonable and dishonest at the same time. For example, we have the concept of civil POV-pushing – where someone dishonestly manipulates consensus but is polite while they do so. But it would seem a contradiction to talk of "decent POV-pushing". I would rather have decent behaviour at RfA than merely civil behaviour.

  "Behave with good conduct" says in four words what can be accomplished in two. We should be aiming to keep this notice as concise as possible. – Teratix ₵ 14:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not that I'm advocating for incivility, of course, but the fact that we can have a discussion such as this illustrates how difficult it is to make hard-and-fast rules about what kinds of comments should or should not be allowed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's possible to be open and honest in a kind, sympathetic manner, versus a confrontational manner. Too often editors choose an aggressive approach when a more tempered one would be better suited for maintaining a collaborative environment. So I do think keeping things on an amicable level is a reasonable goal. ("Nice" is a more difficult quality to pin down, as I feel there is greater variance in the different connotations people have about the term.) isaacl (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes and no. Yes, in that I agree that editors should be as kind as possible while maintaining honesty under the circumstances and not everyone does this. No, in that sometimes the circumstances mean that it's impossible to be kind and honest at the same time. – Teratix ₵ 01:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, it is true that sometimes no matter how a message is given, it will upset the recipient. My point is that honest opinions can be delivered with empathy, even with the knowledge that it will cause distress. isaacl (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is great! Not "bla, bla", but something that wakes you up. We only need a reminder and this does the job. JMCHutchinson (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer 'kind' to 'nice' or 'polite' or 'friendly' or 'civil'. For me, 'nice' conjurs up backhanded compliments and Bless your heart and warnings to bickering children. Is that a US-centric thing? Polite and civil both allow for the snub direct. 'Friendly' can be faked. Kindness can't as easily. Kindness requires us to consider how something feels to the other person. Valereee (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with emphasizing the goal of communicating in a kind manner (I have previously written an essay on the value of kindness in a collaborative project). isaacl (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 4 by Tryptofish

Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

What I'm trying to do here is to have a reminder, but to boil it down to what existing policies already say. This doesn't create anything new and specific to RfA that could lead to unfair targeting of oppose opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How about adding Editors may not cast aspersions without evidence. as the second sentence? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that, and have added it down below :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I've commented there. As I said, I'm trying not to create anything that is not already in policy. That second sentence takes an information page, and implies that it could lead to blocks, which is sort of like making an information page into a policy through the back door. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 4a by Tryptofish

Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors may not make serious accusations without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

This is per the discussion below in Proposal 5. It adds a second sentence in the middle, which other editors seem to want, and it links to the NPA policy, as opposed to an information page, while using the verbatim language of that policy page, without taking it out of context. It also covers a broader range of potential attacks, by not limiting the language just to "personal behavior", as well as being more faithful to the consensus at Proposal 9b in Phase 1. But it does not make what I think is a very grave error in Proposal 5, where it sounds like an RfA commenter can get into serious trouble, or maybe even be blocked, for saying something like "I don't trust how this candidate will close AfDs". I have yet to see anyone really explain how that wouldn't become a problem if Proposal 5 were implemented. We have a real problem with badgering of opposes (and even neutrals), and we should not be giving badgerers fuel to go after good-faith opposes and neutrals that do not violate any policies. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 5 by theleekycauldron

Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

In Proposal 4, I had actually thought about Do not cast aspersions without evidence. as the second sentence. I think it's better to frame it as instructions (do not), instead of as a rule (editors may not), because the next sentence jumps to talking about blocks, and it sounds like we are saying that insufficient evidence is blockable, which I would oppose. If that revision is made, then I'm ambivalent, and could go either way on it, depending on what other editors say. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. Personally, I don't see any difference between the two. The "enforce with blocks" part follows anyway, and it is pretty consensus that casting aspersions violates conduct policies one way or another. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is already established that aspersions can lead to blocks. It's actually something that was first established by ArbCom during the GMO case (where I was the filing party, by the way). But I'm being a stickler over what I called, in the Proposal 4 discussion, elevating an information page to a policy through the back door, because the wording on the information page hasn't gone through the community vetting that is required for policy adoption, and I don't want some badgerer of an opposer to wikilawyer that some wording on an information page means there should be a block because of what it says in this box. Badgering of opposes is a real problem. Aspersions are closer to what I've been arguing is the real reason why qualified candidates decline to run for RfA, so I'm not completely opposing something like this, but I want to be careful not to do harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

We already have "when necessary", so I don't see such arguments likely. Instead of brainstorming every possible obstacle, should we discuss this again when such wikilawyering happens? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that you feel that way, and given that I feel the way I do, I'm not seeing a problem with changing "Editors may not" to "Do not". (In fact, it's also better writing style, because it avoids starting two consecutive sentences with the same word.) I do think the purpose of Phase 2 is to brainstorm, and I also don't want to wait until there's a shitshow over a controversial block before we make this slight adjustment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I said that^ two days ago, and haven't gotten a reply. And now this: [1]. I've explained my rationale for the change. One editor said, above, "Either way is fine with me", and another reverted with an edit summary of "no, I object to this wording", without saying what the objection is. What's the problem? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not "another editor", it's the proposal I've written and I'd expect it to reflect wording I agree with and policy agrees with. I'm happy to change the link, but I'm not happy to water down NPA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, so I see that you changed the link from the information page to the policy page: [2]. Given that, I made the piped language consistent with it (since the linked section of NPA isn't about "casting aspersions"): [3]. If that change I made stands, I can support this. (By "another editor", I meant you are not Aaron. There's nothing wrong that I know of with being an editor.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to reflect precisely what the guideline says – hopefully, that should be okay :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

You keep calling it a guideline, but it's a policy. I've revised it, verbatim from policy, to better reflect what the passage on the policy page, overall, is saying. (In this context, "accusations about personal behavior", taken without the rest of what it says at NPA, could mean things like "I don't trust how the candidate will close AfDs.") --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Please do not change someone else's proposal against their wishes. Leeky proposed the exact wording she did. If you want the civility reminder to align exactly with your preference, I suggest making another (sub)-proposal. Soni (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that until now. Strong oppose, per what I just said above. This will do a great deal of harm. I've already proposed a better version just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

After thinking about these issues some more, it seems to me that the discussion of Proposal 9b during Phase 1 established that any prohibitive language should be reserved for accusations of "specific policy violations". I'm somewhat concerned that Proposals 4a and 5 here link to a policy page, but use language that can also be construed as applying to things that go beyond specific policy violations. One can make a criticism of an RfA candidate that does not violate the NPA policy, but that nonetheless is "about personal behavior". So just having a blue link to the NPA policy does not mean that some editors will not argue that something that is acceptable under policy is nonetheless prohibited in RfA discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

NPA supersedes 9b, and I see no reason to believe that the proposal currently up here misinterprets NPA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The proposal links to it, which obviously is not a misinterpretation. But editors can misinterpret it, by reading the plain wording of the blue link, and as I already said, something can be "about personal behavior" without being a violation of NPA. As you say, policies supersede Phase 1 discussions, and I agree with that. But you've just handed me the opportunity to point out, yet again, that WP:Consensus is a policy, just as much as NPA is, and yet you have made very clear to me in your comments to me at your talk page that you believe that in some circumstances, Phase 1 discussions can override any consensus arrived at in Phase 2. Apparently, the balance between Phase 1 and policy is situational. Just sayin'. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

To deal with Tryptofish's objections, might it be better to concentrate on what policy says which is that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are "never acceptable"? This is already established policy for nearly 16 years and long before the GMO case [4] [5] [6] [7]. I mean we don't necessarily have to repeat the wording exactly but some wording which everyone agrees does not excessively deviate from what NPA says so most likely avoiding the casting aspersions phrasing. In doing so we just link to WP:NPA#WHATIS or maybe make a new link which will link to the particular line of NPA, and let NPA link to the casting aspersions information page for us. Then there should be no concerns about us elevating a informational page to policy. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

That being the case, we don't need to say anything additional at all, because we already link to the personal attacks policy in the first sentence. That could bring us back to the 2-sentence version that I proposed above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Support this version. Clovermoss🍀</ span> (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Support I think this is my favorite proposal here. Toadspike (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Fanfanboy (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Support HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Support proposal 5. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.