Ordinarily I would suggest that this thread is a little out of scope for this list, but given that Sarah's survey shows that what it touches on is a significant issue for some contributors who responded, I think it is for now relevant.
I should begin by saying that I, personally, would group myself with her respondents who did *not* feel Wikipedia was a battleground, that it had not been for them. And given that I'm among the top 25 admins all-time in handing out blocks (see WP:ADMINSTATS), I suppose that is unusual (not really, though, when you consider how many of those blocks arose from anti-vandal work and username patrol). For me, civility works. I generally find Wikipedia to be more collegial than other websites, not less. That said, I'm aware that other Wikipedia exists. And I am not immune (One of the editors who made an incivil remark about Ryan's action, I had to publicly state a few months ago that I would be avoiding interactions with her on a particular topic because I just found her so maddeningly obtuse and unable to assume good faith that I could not remain civil in discussions with her about this topic; instead I have chosen to engage one of her close allies who hasn't forgotten how to assume good faith. Although that dispute has faded for now I still find it grimly satisfying to see that she is defending the editor in question here (whom I by the way have never had a personal issue with although I can see how others would). Years back, in my early days as an admin, I happened to be sifting through user-conduct RFCs when I came to one on a similarly problematic user. After reviewing some of the evidence and particularly the user's page, I submitted a highly critical outside view that drew about 12 signatures and a lot of supportive email from the various users bringing the dispute. As in this case, the user had at least two admins defending him (one of whom I completely avoid even to this day as she (yes, she) is the least pleasant and downright cattiest (and especially on this list, I do not use that word lightly) Wikipedian I know of, an opinion I know I'm not alone in, as she has a reputation among current and former ArbCom members for hanging out there and nitpicking their work). The talk page discussion grew very heated as you can expect since it was but the latest chapter in an ongoing narrative, tipped somewhat by this upstart outside view, and eventually the case reached ArbCom (the second time this user had been taken there). Some sanctions were ultimately imposed. The user in question is still editing, still doing productive work but more civilly IMO, and the last time we interacted he listed an article I had long tended for AfD. It was deleted, and I ultimately agreed with the reasoning (I will restore it if and when it becomes notable enough). No problems between us. Yet a few months later I decided to unblock a user (who has since been banned) who the other enabling admin (who has also since left ... some sort of pattern here?) had blocked out of (unbeknownst to me) enforcing some sanctions that had resulted from a particularly long and drawn-out ArbCom case related to a nationalistic dispute. There was only one hour left on the block, and I decided out of collegiality to let the other admin know I was making the unblock (since without knowing about the ArbCom case the block had seemed rather unjustified to me). His immediate response was ... not to reply to me but to take it to AN/I, where he accused me of doing this just to get back at him for the RFC, now months in the past. Huh? Like I had wanted to get back at him ... which was the furthest thing from my mind. It was the first time I'd been taken to AN/I for an administrative action, and eventually we all (at least all of us except the other admin) came to an understanding that I had been acting in good faith, and I said I would check in the future to see if ArbCom sanctions were involved (and now, as a matter of routine when reviewing unblock requests, I will not touch one where ArbCom sanctions are involved because those are just inevitably so complicated that those of us who do our admin work "at the front" as I like to call it, are very likely to not understand the full circumstances and any action is likely to look misguided ... conversely, though, the admins who *are* familiar with those cases are often seen as too involved or playing favorites). Agreeing all too well with Risker that civility blocks don't work (and apparently haven't in this case) not only because they make the editor in question madder but also his/her supporters, I do have a suggestion for how we might at least temper this. As we all say (especially those admins with Adminitis (WP:ADMINITIS)) we're here to edit an encyclopedia. I often find that the "toxic users" and their enablers are people who increasingly edit Wikipedia to edit at certain pages in project space (AN/I, RFC, RFA, and the ArbCom pages), and user talk pages, with minimal contributions to, you know, actual articles (and even there those edits tend towards reverts or other actions related to the ongoing discussions elsewhere, rather than the sort of expansions or improvements that are the coin of our realm, the way we all built our trust within the community once upon a time (well, not in the past tense for me at least). The aforementioned catty admin enabler, whose recent edit history I'm looking at at the moment, is a case in point. She isn't editing as much as she used to, which I take neither joy nor regret in, but even so in the last month I see just one or two edits to main namespace that aren't reverts, and those are mainly minor things like wikifying something or removing a POV phrase or two. Undoubtedly useful, but there's nothing to rediscover the joy of Wikipedia like really expanding an article, possibly to GA or FA. So ... I propose, on an informal basis at first, something like the purgative rituals that I have read of some primitive peoples having around tribal wars that are required of both sides regularly during such a conflict. Anyone participating in an AN/I that lasts beyond a certain time, or a certain number of edits, will be required to make at least five purely editorial edits (it could be things like routine maintenance from the back of categories like articles needing wikification, articles needing proofreading, articles needing references improved, and so forth) to actual articles for every AN/I edit they made before they can post to AN/I again. Or other high-drama areas. Without collaborating with anyone they were in the AN/I or other dramalet with. This would go some way to making sure that everyone really is here to edit an encyclopedia first. Daniel Case _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
