User:Cynwolfe/civility proposal

I'm concerned about the use of WP:CIV as a tactic to block vigorous debate on talk pages. Nobody wants talk pages to turn into places where names are called, epithets hurled, and personal attacks substituted for reasoned argument. But a growing number of editors are frustrated by restrictions on speech that have nothing to do with improving article content or creating a productive environment — that is, restrictions that seem arbitrary or subjective and applied at whim.

My personal view is that WP talk pages don't need to be more civil than, say, the comments sections at the New York Times, which are moderated. It's good for article quality if people are committed enough to argue about it. The WP community's standards for civility exceed (in my experience) those for staff meetings involving university academic departments and the newsroom of a daily newspaper. Article quality can actually be harmed by some of the time-wasting behavior WP:CIV encourages, particularly civil POV-pushing.

"Civility" is highly subjective. How do you know what hurts my feelings? It's problematic that "civility" is set in policy stone, while WP:COMPETENCE is a mere essay, something nice but not required. Highly competent editors can be blocked for stating what they see as true ("you've obviously never read a book on the subject" or "you're an idiot if you think that"), while incompetent editors roam free, politely wearing their tin-foil hats.

Currently, those who request an RfC must show that they've tried to resolve the dispute. I'm proposing that a further condition be imposed when an accusation of incivility is made:

• If User A makes a formal accusation of incivility against User B, it must be certified by three outside parties (defined following) that User A remained civil on the talk page in question.
  • An "outside party" is defined as a user who has at least autoconfirmed status and who
    • did not engage directly in the discussion referenced by evidentiary diffs;
    • did not engage directly with either User A or User B within the last 30 days.

To "engage directly" would require explanation. My thoughts: An outside user may have left a comment on the same talk page as one of the users involved, but not in the same section, or not in direct response to a comment made by User A or B. It isn't "engaging directly" if the outside user and User A or B both left a comment at the same RfC or the like, as long as they didn't direct comments at each other. An outside user will not have left a message on the talk page of either User A or User B within the last 30 days.

If User A can't be certified as meeting the standards for civility, an admin closes the discussion immediately. This should halt some frivolous accusations that are nothing more than a tactic to block an opponent.