Apologies for the formatting - the machine stripped the breaks that would have made my post readable. Grrrr (I'm a workman blaming the tools ...) It should have looked like this:
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 > trivial 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
