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

Reply via email to