On 27 October 2011 09:07, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <danc...@frontiernet.net > wrote:
> 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 > > I’d like to agree with Daniel that “purgative rituals” should be added to the repertoire of ways to deal with these very difficult problems. In modern times, the label for this is behaviourally-based change or [[behaviour modification]] and it works better than exclusion or punitive strikes. As Daniel said, these methods remind people what the point of things is (things like other people and the society we all have to work in) and they provide a way forward. Exclusion, excommunication, imprisonment, whatever you call it in the real world, is like banning – it not only loses any contribution they can make but more importantly, gives time and space for anger and resentment to build and then burst out when the opportunity arises (in this case when the block expires). Dealing with graffiti is an examples of this in operation – punishing and ranting at them gives them the fame they seek, so what works best is painting it over quickly. In WP terms this is reverting but it doesn’t work for this level of incivility, I suggest this is because the motivation is power, not fame (or possibly power as well as fame). That brings us back to the “collaborative goal setting” that Daniel suggests. Perhaps some options chosen by the individual could be added to Daniel’s idea of editing – it could be any quantifiable, self-chosen contribution, including editing some other favourite topic or being a wikignome or wikifairy etc. Or, the person could work one-on-one with someone from an opposing point of view to reach consensus on another sort of article. These are productive responses, the goal of which should be to keep the person productively engaged and have them experience their work as valued. Other organisations have to deal with anti-social behaviour and perhaps we could learn from them. The excuse that they are “making such good contributions”, for example, has also confronted other industries/ organisations. Some groups use the money they pay for a service as an excuse for appalling behaviour. Examples include drunken football teams being destructive in aeroplanes (the airlines have had to ban some teams) or rock stars in hotels (making the behaviour public helps get pressure for change in these cases). It is very similar to customer complaints that every organisation has to deal with. When I worked on this for a big organisation, I found that the customer complaints process ranged across and touched on everything from the banal to the criminal and the process needed to take account of that range. So adding this tool (i.e. working on the encyclopaedia in some other way before being banned) to the box should help. In intractable cases, banning will be the only solution, but for the middle range of people who once enjoyed contributing productively, being given a “cooling off” period in which they can return to that for a while might work. I am assuming that ArbCom is the most appropriate place for these kinds of resolutions to be handled because it is not likely to be feasible for every admin to hand out such injunctions, nor would they be enforceable. Does ArbCom consider that behavioural disputes are as worthy of arbitration as content disputes? If not, is there a reason? If they do consider such intractable (and apparently easily identifiable) cases as within their scope, can these approaches be introduced to their repertoire of sanctions? Thankfully, I have never had to deal with these types of people on WP, but if I did, it would chase me away. While I think the issue is broader than the gender one, they are inextricably related. Gillian User: Whiteghost.ink
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
