Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Milestone commemoration

I just noticed that, assuming the Rapture doesn't intervene, ANI will get its 1,000,000th edit sometime in the next few months. I think this should be recognized in some way -- maybe a prize for the lucky editor who makes that historic edit? EEng 02:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

We should have a giant commemorative debate, invoking as many subtle personal attacks and accusations as possible, before ultimately resolving the issue by throwing a BOOMERANG at the person who opened the request in good faith in the first place. A true ANI-worthy celebration :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I nominate EEng to receive the boomerang. --Izno (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ajraddatz has the right idea, though they left out the obligatory after-party in which the boomeranged editor gets caught socking around the block, the SPI turns up a whole laundry bin of existing and new socks by that editor including at least one admin account, and five different long-term editors post endlessly to various Admins' talk pages about how they should all turn in their own mops because that original ANI post was in good faith.

Or, we could go with EEng's idea and give them a prize. Personally, I think being crowned "Queen of the Drama, Defender of the Sockfarm and Lady Protrectress of the butthurt" would be a great prize. I can make a crown template for their userpage and everything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I could start an RFC about abolishing ARBCOM. That would probably take it over the limit... Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

We could probably just start a discussion about what to do regarding the millionth edit. By the time we got done arguing we'd be at 1.1mil. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that people would discuss what to do about the millionth edit? No, we're Wikipedians. We only care about improving articles. We don't fart around on the backend arguing about pointless-yet-amusing things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Just let me know when I should swoop in without having participated in the discussion at all and block someone for typing the word "fart", and then leave for 6 weeks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Pants, tell it to the Category Police. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I like arbitrary number related celebrations! Some 'prizes' for consideration (I find the suggestions so far a little conservative):

Immunity from PA blocks (as long as the PAs are delivered in the form of a haiku). Is allowed to add a 6th pillar of their choosing (as long as it is written in the form of a haiku). Gains / loses admin rights. Gains / loses Arbcom seat. Is indef blocked by Jimbo. Is indef restricted to only being allowed to post on Jimbo's talk page. Has their user name / block log / contribution history switched with an editor of their choosing. Gets to write an un-sourced biography of themselves that will be hosted on the main page for a day. Scribolt (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: You have to be sure to get the details right; the block should be an indef, and in the block log it should say something completely unrelated and inscrutable like "WP:FORUMSHOPPING", and you can't disappear until you've answered the first inevitable "WTF?!" question with something dismissive like "MPants is clearly WP:NOTHERE; typing "fart" on a discussion page is something like 99% of their edits." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I honestly didn't notice until just now that your comment above mine included the word "fart"! Good job, subconscious me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm in your head now. You can't escape... The Pants!!! Muah ha ha ha ha. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

How about, right after the one million mark, we have someone "accidentally" delete the page to see how long that ties up the database? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh my... better yet would be right before, if only to keep people from getting bragging rights for edit 1,000,000. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've tried before; too many versions, you have to get a Steward. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I renamed a user with 90,000 edits the other day, and it caused ~45 seconds of lag. Assuming that deleting ANI would hang up the servers at the same flat rate, and that the connection of the steward deleting the page didn't time out (which it certainly would), I estimate 8 minutes and 15 seconds lag time from deleting the page. But I certainly won't be the one to test it! (Edit: Upon reflection, deleting a page with many revisions is more server intensive than a rename with a lot of edits. So much for that thought exercise.) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Nah. See, if we do it right after the one million mark, then several people will claim it and none of them will be able to prove it. Then our first thread on AN Second Edition can be who should get blocked for falsely claiming to have made the millionth. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I like your thinking. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

+1 block after pointlessly long discussion to that! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 14:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Me and my big mouth. EEng 16:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As the edit counter ticks down to doomsday...

• 990,919 as of 02:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• 991,961 as of 03:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Tick tock, tick tock.
• 993,594 as of 01:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm really liking this "delete the page, wait a month for WP to come back online, then start blocking people for claiming the millionth edit" idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Based on the above two data points I calculate a projected date of 13 December UTC. Slowdown during U.S. Thanksgiving (23 Nov) holiday may push that back a day or two. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Pages Needing Protection

Hello, I have been continuously reviewing contents of this page : Sarwanam Theatre Group. Time and again, the page is being edited with incorrect details. Please let me know how the page or a specific section of the page can be protected for further edits so that the page contains only liable and factual names.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hupubird (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hupubird, the proper place to make this request is at WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Madness

Have a look at this edit war here, it seems that this Slayer9004 has written something then this user JJMC89 keeps reverting the edits more than 3 times ! Is any one here to stop the latter from that madness ?! 121.108.189.32 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of blocking your open proxy, and the sock- or meat-puppet of User:CadAPL is listed at SPI. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

When does rudeness cross the line to personal attack

As some are aware I've been putting a lot of time into an incident report, or rather the most recent two of now eight incident reports, concerning French universities.

There is a difficult issue there for me in that one of the participants in the feud is guilty of repeated personal attacks on the other. These are at least partly due to language difficulties, and have been mild compared to other programs of repeated personal attack that have gone to the AN/I archive unresolved. I have even seen admins active on AN/I make comments that I would regard as mild personal attack.

I do not think we should suddenly and without notice change our practice. But on the other hand, I also think that we could be a lot stricter in our application of wp:NPA than has been the case recently. The policy currently states Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks.

It continues Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. There seems very little wiggle-room there to me.

The main problem as I see it is that as well as discouraging the editor attacked, each attack however mild encourages others to similar. But that is also a solution. If these are gently nipped in the bud, we can create an environment in which any rudeness is exceptional and receives no encouragement. I even think that is the intention of the policy.

We don't want an environment in which any harsh word receives an indeff (that is the policy at Citizendium as I understand it, but it's not a great success). But IMO we have gone too far towards the rude end of the spectrum, which may be a factor in editor retention, and I'd like to see us try to move back a bit. Andrewa (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we absolutely should adopt the Citizendium approach. For example, yesterday there wasn't a single personal attack or instance of incivility anywhere on Citizendium. Of course (and I am not making this up [1]) there were only two (2) edits, period, made to the entirety of Citizendium during that same 24 hours, but that shouldn't blind us to what's really important here. EEng 02:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Very funny. But I mentioned Citizendium specifically to point out that I do not think we should imitate their example. I take it you agree.

So seriously now, don't you think we'd retain editors better if they could feel safe from their comments being described (rather unfairly IMO) as bizarre and hypocritical? [2]

Now I'm not easily discouraged, but others will be, and that seems to me to be exactly the sort of comment that wp:NPA bans, and for exactly that reason. But it also seems to me that such behaviour is currently tolerated and even, by the silence, encouraged. And as an inevitable result, imitated. Andrewa (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill:

Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate ... If the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that the offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent.

EEng 04:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

We have an accepted definition of bizarre ideas, see WP:FRINGE. So, stating that a fringe idea is bizarre is not a personal attack. Hypocritical can be construed as as personal attack if it lacks evidence (such as diffs making the point obvious, when asked for diffs). Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As you will have seen from the diff I gave, the full text of the quote is I find it particularly bizarre and hypocritical that an editor supporting the move side has described a "booby trap" above for editors when I don't believe he has ever (at least recently) edited these (New York or New York City) pages. As a major editor of these pages, I have never found a problem with the current nomenclature. No evidence was given that my ideas were fringe, and in that NYRM2017 subsequently succeeded and that a major argument in its favour was that editors were regularly wikilinking to the wrong page, IMO they subsequently proved not to be fringe at all, but supported by consensus. Similarly, no diff was ever given to support the notion that I was being hypocritical, it's not even clear to me what the specific charge of hypocrisy was, it seems to just be name-calling. So, don't these both qualify as personal attacks? Andrewa (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

JSM is a hero of all logicians who dabble in ethics, we claim him as our patron Saint. But this selective quote from his On Liberty does not accurately represent his thoughts on the matter. See the full text of the chapter, and note also that elsewhere he strongly defends not only the right but the responsibility of society to limit freedom in certain circumstances.

It seems to me that he would love Wikipedia, and would particularly love the balance currently expressed in the policy on personal attacks. Andrewa (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Your link isn't to anything like your patron saint-hero's full text; try here [3].
• Other than his bit about corn dealers – used to illustrate the principle that "even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute [by] their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act" – I'm struggling to find where (in On Liberty, anyway) Mill strongly defends not only the right but the responsibility of society to limit freedom, especially in the context of freedom of expression. I look forward to your pointing me to that.
• Anyway, I wasn't suggesting importation into WP policy of Mill-style free-speech absolutism. I was simply borrowing his excellent expression of the difficulties and dangers of trying to define civility in debate.

EEng 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

EEng, so you wouldn't say that its a categorical imperative for those of us living behind the veil of ignorance on Wikipedia to use Mill as the basis for our original position? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I kant understand your question. My preferred metaphor for WP is, however, a vale of ignorance. EEng 17:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Did someone say Canning Vale? Make mine a half a pint of shandy. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Love it, but maybe wikilink a bit more consistently to things such as categorical imperative when making private jokes (even in small)? Not everyone here has studied ethics. Or maybe we should make a major in ethics the next requirement for new admins? When the rules fail, just add to them. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Very sorry that my "jokes" are wholly public. And sorry if I might appear to be somewhat conflicted. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There's nowhere to hide at WIkipedia! If we could adopt Bonhoeffer's ethics here then Wikipedia would be even more awesome, but I'll be content if we just apply Mill consistently. Your jokes were wikilinked and so not the subject of my criticism. Have a look at wp:rantstyle#Linking to this page for my take on humour (of which I am inordinately fond) and again I find no fault with you. Andrewa (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Any progress on pointing out where in On Liberty Mill strongly defends not only the right but the responsibility of society to limit freedom? 'Cause that's really gonna put a whole new dimension on Mill for me. EEng 20:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

strongly defends not only the right but the responsibility of society to limit freedom in certain circumstances was what I said... it's some decades since I did my formal studies in Ethics, but I'll look it up... but for a start our own article at On Liberty#On the limits to the authority of society over the individual says in part Generally, he holds that a person should be left as free to pursue his own interests as long as this does not harm the interests of others. In such a situation, "society has jurisdiction over [the person's conduct]." Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I had a feeling such vaguery would be forthcoming.

• Of course it would be in certain circumstances – surely we needn't clarify that Mill didn't advocate limits on freedom in all circumstances.
• And of course Mill wasn't an anarchist, so we needn't clarify that Mill didn't oppose all limits on freedom regardless of circumstance.
• We're talking about freedom of expression, and so (as I said earlier) I'd be happy if you could direct me to where Mill strongly defends not only the right but the responsibility of society to limit freedom of expression.

EEng 02:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to debate this in an appropriate place, but here all I think we need to conclude is that you and I disagree on the application of JSM's ethical theories to Wikipedia policy, and allow anyone interested to follow the links we have provided. If any third party wishes me to further clarify here, I'm happy to do that. Andrewa (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"When does rudeness cross the line to personal attack" Deliberate rudeness and combativeness is a well known strategy and a very effective way to eliminate participants from a discussion. Either by provoking a participant into making an actual personal attack, or by having them leave on their own volition. Since intent is usually hard to prove and contributions are 'valuable' in a measurable way and chased away/silenced editors are not measurable, there isn't a good way to prevent this undesirable behavior. It would be healthy if the more experienced you are within our community, the less we tolerate rudeness from you. However most of the time we practice the reverse; the more experienced you are, the more rudeness you can get away with, because you are better at walking that fine but vague line between rudeness and PA. We even have some users who unapologetically profess themselves being WP:DICKs for philosophical reasons and even these we don't do anything about it.. (because again, measuring is hard).

So no, I do not think we can be stricter, because we are not as a collective leading by example, which makes it hard for those wanting to gently nip in the bud these potential problems, to feel empowered to issue warnings and act upon combative and rude behavior. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree we should not be measuring DICKs, hard or not. EEng 18:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Part of the problem now is that some admins are setting an appalling example. Whether this is cause or effect is now academic. I repeat, our policy currently reads Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. (my emphasis)

We are supposed to have tightened up the rules for admins since I was given "the mop", now expecting a higher standard of behaviour from them (us) even when not acting as an admin; ARBCOM has been explicit on this, and our stricter RFA procedures are an attempt to make it work. But my observation is that the respect shown by admins for others (including each other) has actually declined. Rules are no substitute for respect.

Our current policies on personal attacks and assuming good faith represent a past consensus. Admins have no right to depart from these policies. But even if they (we) had that right, it would still be a very stupid thing to do, in my opinion, and Wikipedia is suffering from it.

Respect is not a magic bullet to reverse our declining editor base. But it certainly would not hurt. Andrewa (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If you really want to pursue this, I think you should look at punishment. If there are no consequences, then people will not heed warnings. It may be childish, but it works. In my perspective the biggest mistake we made, was to state that a block cannot be punitive. Since blocking is effectively the only punishment strategy we have, this has (especially for the experience users) created an all (permanent and eternal block) or nothing situation. It would be better if there were a chill-out time that can be punitively allotted (take away toys and stand in the corner). For further effect, show a public number on every users userpage, representing how much chill out he received over the last year. Or instead of actual blocks, let every user alot a certain amount of karma + and - points per month to other users and reflect a karma score on all users userpages (this is the slashdot comment model). This breaks the all or nothing balance, which is what is needed here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Could I have my three years' worth allocated now, please? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree on preventative-not-punitive. Punitive is preventative by virtue of its deterrent effect both on the sanctioned user and on everybody else. The rest of the world figured this out centuries ago. I shudder to imagine a world in which offenders were let off because they had temporarily stopped offending, but somehow Wikipedia thinks they can pull that off. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I really want to pursue this

If you really want to pursue this, I think you should look at punishment. No, as you observe blocks and bans are not for punishment, but to protect the Encyclopedia from disruption. That's an important principle, and I see no need to depart from it.

The karma idea might have some merit. We already have the thanks system and of course barnstars. Carrots generally work better than sticks, particularly when dealing with adult behaviour. And childish behaviour can simply be blocked, and should be, as a last resort, when it disrupts the Encyclopedia.

But it isn't even being taken seriously at present. Attempts to address insults and disparagement via our current systems get ignored, or greeted with childish banter like the above, or maybe a bit of both. Now there's a place in Wikipedia talk pages for lighthearted banter, but dismissing attempts to raise a serious question is not one of them. (And I hope the term childish banter here will be taken as a valid criticism rather than a personal attack, that line is sometimes hard to draw or to walk.)

I think we can do better. And again I say, the key is respect. That is what our policies are designed to encourage, and it is also what is being lost by our disregarding them, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, and want to say as much on the record. bd2412 T 21:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You are addressing what is possibly (still) one of the biggest problems facing Wikipedia. I hope you don't think I'm "dismissing attempts to raise a serious question." Thanks and barnstars are fine for those who like to be part of a cosy club. They really are quite incidental for those who want to be abusive, for whatever reason. How does that instant karma thing work again? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree re thanks and barnstars. They help but they're not the answer. I think the karma thing might help too but wouldn't solve things. But if for example I had enough karma that I knew I couldn't be desysopped without the personal intervention of Jimbo, I think I'd be more useful to Wikipedia. Others might not think so! Food for thought, a similar system worked on some of the early social media websites but has fallen from favour AFAIK. Andrewa (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) "blocks and bans are not for punishment, but to protect the Encyclopedia from disruption". That depends on your definition of disruption I guess. To me, it is no more then a very old choice. Whether or not upholding that choice is worth it, can be open to discussion to me. I mentioned it, because as noted "it is the only form of punishment we have. A karma system although very interesting would be a gigantic undertaking (think 6 months development time, next year is already full, so at least 1,5 years out from now). And while carrots work better for those requiring or willing to learn, the police generally uses fines, not carrots for a reason. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Very good point on the police and fines, but I want to turn it around. Wikipedia is what Bill Hybels calls a volunteer rich organisation. The police model is exactly what will not work. Andrewa (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has yet attempted to answer the question I asked about the only specific example yet raised.

In my opinion, we need something less severe (and more effective!) than AN/I for dealing with this sort of attack. To me there seems no doubt that it is a mild personal attack as the policy now stands. There are two problems with mild personal attacks. One is that, even if they do no real damage to the victim (me in this instance), they encourage both the attacker and others to continue to flout the policy, and perhaps other policies as well. As observed above, even Mill did not preach absolute freedom.

And the other is, as also observed above, they disrupt the discussion. Others are discouraged from contributing lest they be targeted.

But first things first. Are these mild attacks contrary to policy? Andrewa (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The "question I asked" link shows your comment above at 13:27, 18 October 2017. I'm sorry to be dense, but is the text it quotes the example of rudeness that should be sanctioned? The question of where to draw the bright line is very difficult. In particular, there should be no attempt to sanction rudeness without consideration of any preliminary WP:CPUSH or WP:RGW or WP:CIR provocations from the other side. Has anyone mentioned the abandoned WP:Wikiquette assistance which I thought was quite useful? Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase to which I object is bizarre and hypocritical, as quoted. Both these terms are unjustified, and qualify as personal attacks IMO.

Agree that drawing the line is difficult, and that the surrounding circumstances need to be considered when considering any sanction (the diff I provided was partly to allow this), and not just in terms of the three essays to which you linked (well, one isn't technically an essay but has much the same status).

But we do need to draw a line somewhere, and I'm suggesting we're currently being too lax. This both confuses editors, who should be able to expect admins to follow policy, and allows talk page discussions to be disrupted.

But sanctioned is too strong a word IMO, especially considering how much leeway has been allowed recently. Even mild personal attacks should be effectively discouraged, but in the short term we need to try to do this without sanctions.

Interesting point about Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks is worth a look too. Andrewa (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Just drop it. Yes, even mild personal attacks should be discouraged. But this hardly counts as worth noticeboard drama. I've probably called your position bizarre myself, if not hypocritical. Sometimes we just get too into it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I'm not sure I agree that surrounding circumstances should be given much weight when considering incivility. First, because that's what the policy says: "be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind" and "it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Second, because tolerating incivility in response to incivility only makes things worse. The best approach here is to defuse a situation, not to ratchet it up. And third, because it's a basic point of maturity that your own bad behaviour is not excused by someone else's. I can think of no other sphere of adult life where, "But he said..." is regarded as anything other than a childish attempt to avoid responsibility for your own actions. This'd be a better place if everyone followed the policy and responded to calmly and civilly to provocation instead of leaping on the excuse to let their inner devil out. GoldenRing (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

My comment was intended to point out that (1) the community rarely agrees with a civility sanction (except for blatant nonsense that doesn't require much thought), and (2) there are a lot of CPUSH and RGW and CIR violaters and their efforts should not be rewarded merely because they have learned to push push push while being superficially civil. A system to sanction contributors based on the number of bad words they used would damage the encyclopedia despite what the aspirational but largely unenforced policy says. Would, for example, one occurrence of "bizarre and hypocritical" warrant a sanction regardless of the surrounding circumstances? Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"Would, for example, one occurrence of "bizarre and hypocritical" warrant a sanction regardless of the surrounding circumstances?" I like your idea of resurrecting WP:WQA, as a sort of honeypot. Once all the people who would answer yes to that question have congregated there we could quietly lock the door from the outside. They might never notice. I kid, obviously, but if you want to "enforce civility" that's certainly not the sort of thing you'd start by addressing. -- Begoon 11:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)