Fiona, in an ideal world this would work well, and indeed I've used the technique and/or seen it be effective many times.
There is a brief discussion of an example here that I stumbled upon completely coincidentally today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Floquenbeam#A_cup_of_tea_for_you.21_.28sorry.29(note this will eventually be archived) In particular, Floquenbeam refers to a "comic" by a now-retired editor, Geogre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Comic (anyone who's spent any time at the Administrator noticeboards will recognize this behaviour instantly) As well, there is a concurrent discussion of some of the aspects of this issue on the wiki-en-L mailing list too. I do agree with some of the other posters in this thread that there are some editors whose response to any attempt at suggesting self reflection would be "go reflect yourself"...with perhaps a different word in place of "reflect". There aren't a lot of them, but they have a genuinely disproportionate effect on the project; however, one thing I've noticed is that once a user has a reputation for being a "problem", months or years of good behaviour doesn't change that reputation. We leave them no way to be seen as anything other than that problem user, as they're essentially disqualified from clean starts or other account changes. I'd just like to clarify as well that my earlier post was not in any way an attempt to classify human nature; it was intended to illustrate the scenarios where accusations of incivility are commonplace, and to link it to the history of the project. Again, no answers here, just context. Risker/Anne On 28 October 2011 18:08, Fiona Apps <wikipa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hate to be overly simplistic but I find in these circumstances that IAR > applies. **** > > ** ** > > Just be courteous to all users involved, even those accused of incivility, > and use the Socratic method. Question them about their actions in a way that > suggests that you are not taking sides (which as an uninvolved administrator > or editor should probably be the case anyway) and ask them about their > assessment of the suitability of their behaviour. Usually when confronted > with having to do a self-assessment most will agree to at least back off > from the situation to get some head-space. Having a self-imposed break is > much simpler and produces much better outcomes than having an > administrator-enforced one. **** > > ** ** > > I know that's a highly interpretive way of looking at things but if we > over-think these things and try and put human nature into categories (not > that Risker didn't do a damn fine job there) we'll just end up where we are > now; constrained by policy and unable to tackle the reality of the > situation.**** > > ** ** > > Anyway, that's just my two cents. Feel free to shoot me for it. **** > > ** ** > > *From:* gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: > gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Risker > *Sent:* 28 October 2011 22:26 > *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects > *Subject:* Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki**** > > ** ** > > > There are a lot of challenges in being able to develop a consistent process > of managing user behaviour. Here are just a few that I've noticed over the > years:**** > > **** > > - User acting entirely within editing policy, although usually at the > "bolder" end of the spectrum, being accused of behaving extremely > inappropriately, often with the words "civility" and/or "courtesy" thrown > in. **** > - Users relying on one editing policy to edit content in a way that > could reasonably be predicted to arouse dissent, and then accusing other > editors of "failing to follow policy" because they point to a different > policy. **** > - Two or more users starting off with minor barbs (usually starting > with allegations of policy/guideline violations and becoming increasingly > personal), continued escalation over the course of several posts, then only > one/a few of the involved users getting warned/blocked for "incivility". > This one is particularly insidious, as it has the reasonably predictable > effect of creating significant resentment on the part of those blocked (the > now-sullied block log tends to be used as a club) whilst also appearing to > support the behaviour of the non-blocked participants. Both groups tend to > feel the action justifies them continuing to follow the same behavioural > pattern. **** > - Long observation of wiki-history indicates that systemic problems are > rarely acknowledged, let alone acted upon, by the community unless one or a > small group of editors exceeds usual behavioural norms to focus attention > on > the issue. To put it bluntly, it takes a lot of noise to get the > community's > attention on systemic issues long enough to address them, even partially. > This method has variable success, ranging from serious community > discussions and policy/practice changes through blocking or otherwise > sanctioning the users who raise the issues. If not done well, the attempt > at problem resolution devolves into discussions about the appropriateness > of > the initiator's behaviour rather than the underlying problem. Initiators > are regularly referred to as "uncivil". **** > - The use of the term "collegial" to describe the editing milieu. > Anyone who has spent much time in the academe will recognize a lot of the > "problem" behaviours we see on our own project, particularly > personalization > of disputes, which is one of the major elements leading to the perception > of > incivility. Indeed, some of our most significant problem areas involve > editors with academic credentials behaving pretty much within the norms for > their profession, i.e., pretty unpleasantly toward those who don't agree > with their educated opinions. **** > > In other words, as a community we create a climate where poor behaviour > is the most effective means to motivate needed changes, where our policies > and practices can be used as weapons both to support negative behaviour and > also to "punish" positive behaviour, where the boundaries of unacceptable > behaviour vary widely dependent on a large number of factors and enforcement > is extraordinarily inconsistent, and where we openly claim to follow a > behavioural model that *sounds* progressive but is in reality possibly even > more nasty than our own. > > On reading far, far back into archives, it appears that "incivility" has > been a problem almost since the inception of the project. In the early days > of the project, blocks and bans were almost non-existent, and huge amounts > of time were invested in trying to "correct" behaviour (considerably more > per capita than today, the community cuts its losses much earlier now than > in 2002-04). In fact, blocks and bans were very rare until the arrival of > extensive trolling and vandalism in 2005-06, which led to the appointment of > a massive number of administrators in 2006-07 in order to address these > problems. > > None of this speaks to solutions, I know. But it is important to put the > discussion into a more historical context, and to recognize the flashpoints > where incivility is often identified. > > Risker/Anne > > > **** > > _______________________________________________ > 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
