I also believe that ArbCom _could_ provide good solutions for these
situations, but the existing model isn't very scalable and doesn't work
for many cases. One potential solution would be for ArbCom to offer the
services of a "prosecutor" for certain cases, when the person bringing
the complaint doesn't want to be subjected to further harassment. The
problem with ArbCom currently is that you have to have a very tough skin
to go through the process, and in many cases it just makes things worse
in the short term (which can last for months).
Ryan Kaldari
On 10/27/11 11:50 PM, Gillian White wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap