I think my general approach to Wikipedia is not exactly typical of the voices commonly heard on the lists, so I want to share a few thoughts here about how I've approached civility.
Like Anne, I have never felt that punitive measures are terribly effective at changing behavior; and like Ryan experienced, every time I've suggested bold action in response to incivility, it's led to more drama rather than less. (My main concern around civility has been in the context of RFAs (administrator elections), where civility often seems to be completely ignored; see the discussion under comment #23 here for an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jamesontai_2 ) So, instead of using admin tools, or reverting uncivil comments, I have come to take what I think is a more organic approach. I generally approach an editor who is being uncivil as a peer, rather than wielding an admin mop, or a tone that might be interpreted as that of an authority; instead of telling them they are being uncivil, as an objective fact, I tell them why I, as an individual, don't like what they said, and how it seems to me to damage the project. I have found this to be somewhat effective, though I definitely wouldn't propose it as a magical solution to all civility issues. A somewhat related dynamic is: in some cases, it's worthwhile to focus on the person on the receiving end of the incivility, rather than the perpetrator. What action will lead to an outcome that is fair and dignified for *that* person? Sometimes, the best I've been able to do is simply distract the aggressive party into attacking *me* instead of the other person (who may be a newbie, or someone who is more emotionally attached to the text than I am.) True, that doesn't end the incivility, but in a case like that I am often satisfied knowing that I have been able to help clear some space for a fellow editor to continue his or her work uninhibited. I don't know if these thoughts are helpful; the situations are always pretty delicate and unique, and I'm never sure how useful it is to generalize about them. But I do think that it's often possible to be more effective by thinking carefully about the desired outcome, and planning a course of action accordingly. -Pete On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ryan, you are a kind and good person. So forgive me for having to be > truthful here. > > Not once in the history of Wikipedia has a 24-hour block for civility > problems ever resulted in the blocked editor becoming more civil. Instead, > it is almost guaranteed to result in their being *less* civil. I don't even > need to know the name of the editor you blocked to know that with each > subsequent civility block, he's become more uncivil. The reason is, I'm > afraid, terribly obvious. You've treated him like a five-year-old and made > him sit on the naughty step - and let's be honest, that barely works with > five-year-olds. Treating an adult in that way can be counted on to have an > even more dramatically perverse effect than it does on a child. > > A six-month civility block may be appropriate, with a clear directive that > the block could be extended promptly with return to treating people poorly. > But a six month block for this kind of behaviour is much easier to defend > than a 24 hour one, given the fact that short blocks for civility problems > create more incivility than they've ever solved. > > Now, I won't be very popular for saying this. Yes, I think that civility > is important. But attempting to discipline adults in the same way as small > children is pretty uncivil too. If the behavior is that bad, then the > person needs to be shown the door, not the naughty step. > > > Risker/Anne > > > On 26 October 2011 01:06, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> Earlier today, a long-standing editor was reported to AN/I for making >> personal attacks. The specific attacks were the following two posts: >> "You simply display your ignorance." >> "Please carry on, so everyone can see what an ignorant arse you are." >> >> As I had recently warned this same user for making personal attacks, and >> they have a long history of attacking other editors (blocked 4 times >> previously for personal attacks), I put a 24 hour block on their account >> for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. >> >> Even though this seems like a pretty minor slap on the wrist, my block >> was quickly undone by another admin and a slew of editors then >> vociferously attacked me for blocking (calling me a "petty tyrant", a >> "wannabe big-dick admin", etc.). >> >> I looked more carefully at the editor's block log and noticed that every >> one of their blocks for personal attacks had been undone by another >> admin (usually without much delay). >> >> This seems to say a lot about the current culture of en.wiki. Namely, >> that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are not taken seriously by our community (or at >> least a large percentage). As civility seems to be a recurring issue in >> gendergap discussions (and Sarah's recent survey), I was wondering what >> people's thoughts on this issue are. Has en.wiki become a toxic >> environment or am I just overreacting to normal behavior? >> >> Ryan Kaldari >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
