Marc Riddell wrote: This really highlights a quite different aspect of the problem: how we use words. An absence of linguistic rigour is not at all rare in this kind of discussion. I think that Will is using the word in a very broad sense while you are reading it more narrowly and precisely. Perhaps "understandable" or even "pardonable" may have been a better choice. Edit wars have often broken out in article space over the subtleties of imperfect synonyms. In time one hopes to find a word that will satisfy both parties. A word used in a mailing thread is not so easily retractable when it is unintentionally misused or ambiguous. Some Brit earlier in this thread listed a number of. words that he considered uncivil when they were used to characterise a person. One of these words was "wanker". From the perspective of the left side of the pond this is just one more of these quaintly humorous British words. Third party interventions in cases of perceived incivility should only take place where the offence is clear. Two thick skinned editors can often exchange epithets one day, and be at their co-operative best the next day on a different issue. In cases of schoolyard bullying it is important to consider the interests of the bullied as well as the bully. Kind words can go a long way with a traumatised newbie. Ec

Agreeing in large part with George's insightful commentary. Adding a few points outside the range of his comments. Regarding block duration, extremely short blocks tend to backfire. Human nature is that people usually become less grumpy after a good meal and a night's rest. Nearly everyone will eat and sleep within 24 hours, so my threshold for civility blocks was 'Did this go far enough that the person should sleep on it?' If it wasn't that serious then the thing to do is engage the editor politely or shrug it off. It's a misnomer to call really short blocks 'cool-down blocks': an editor who gets blocked at 9pm after missing dinner may return in the wee hours hungrier, more fatigued and more upset than before. A lot of editors won't promise to cease the behavior either. We often can't get that type of promise even for situations where it's really needed such as threats and privacy policy violations. Often enough the editor is actually willing to not do it again, but dislikes the one-down position they perceive in that. It comes too close to a coerced apology for some people's tastes. So while it may be appropriate to seek this promise before unblocking for bannable behavior, garden variety incivility doesn't merit it--unless perhaps the incivility itself is so habitual and extreme that it's actually bannable. Also it's very important for administrators to familiarize themselves with the surrounding context. Incivility is easy to determine, but the cause of an editor's frustration may be less visible. Disruptive editors who become wise to that may try to exploit that. The classic example was the Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson arbitration case. Chris had serious civility problems and seemed on his way to a siteban. I blocked him for incivility while the case was ongoing, and a few minutes after his block an impersonation account appeared with a username that resembled the other party and trolled until it got blocked. That's Chris socking, right? Actually no. Checkuser revealed that Jmfangio was actually the reincarnation of a community banned editor, and a *second* sneaky IP editor had created the impersonation sock. The timing of that sock's creation suggested very strongly that the IP editor was trying to frame Chris and get him banned. What really happened was that Chris was trollable, and two trolls had been baiting him. The trolls both got banned properly and Chris has about 50,000 edits now. Admins, please remember that there may be more below the surface when you see incivility. -Durova On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>wrote;wrote: -- http://durova.blogspot.com/

Short blocks tend to be punitive, and are thus, in my opinion, in violation of the blocking policy. This is because (a) they cannot be intended for any purpose other than cooling down somebody (which never works) or (b) creating a permanent mark on a user. Neither of these purposes are effective or fair. Personally, I advocate for (a) no blocks, (b) long-term blocks, or (c) permanent blocks, depending on the seriousness of the situation. —Thomas Larsen