Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
On 10/26/2011 1:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: Earlier today, a long-standing editor was reported to AN/I for making personal attacks. The specific attacks were the following two posts: You simply display your ignorance. Please carry on, so everyone can see what an ignorant arse you are. Off email for a while and catching up. One thing that worked really well in a situation where I was repeatedly harassed by another editor was when someone else brought another ANI vs. the person which I supported and an admin who go fed up with back and forth among three of us threatened to invoke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Interaction_ban#Interaction_ban among us. I said - Yes, go for it!! since it would mean this person could stop insulting and reverting me and getting away with it with her wiley political methods. The person immediately got disgusted and left the article for good! This definitely is good for situations where one or more males are harassing women in an article and perhaps should be invoked more often. If applied in a neutral way it's not necessarily clear who is at fault, I guess Of course, the other approach I sometimes fall back at is giving it back to them as good as I get it - though as someone else put it with great arguments, lots of quotes from policy and just enough very subtle sarcasm that they know they are getting tromped on but can't go anywhere to complain cause it's less obnoxious than whatever they wrote about me :-) But these are all cruel and time wasting games and only those of us of fighting Irish spirit and ornery astrological combinations can bare to deal with them, and then only as spice, not as dinner!!! CM ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
The particular incident that prompted this thread has spawned a request for an arbitration case, which apparently is likely to be accepted. I think this would be a really good opportunity for the committee to make a difference with respect to enabling people with a long history of rude interactions. If nothing else, discussions on this list have demonstrated that the often hostile editing atmosphere is a huge, huge deterrent for many editors and especially for women. Right now, only the most extreme behavior from non-vested users is sanctioned because of the many precedents exempting productive users from strict scrutiny. It may be helpful for people who post here to post to the case request page, and express to the arbitration committee that the value of the editors being driven away far exceeds the value of the editors repeatedly given a pass. The selective enforcement of interaction standards, and the apparent influence of relationships on decision-making, set an example that hobbles any other efforts at improving the atmosphere of the project. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
Apologies for the formatting - the machine stripped the breaks that would have made my post readable. G (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
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
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. G (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
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
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
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
While I understand the frustrations in this thread, it does us no good to resort to incivil behavior here, even regarding a person who is [most likely] not part of this list. I respectfully ask that we refrain from comments like By god, I hate that man. Thank you, LadyofShalott P.S. I realize this is somewhat belated relative to the particular post I am referencing, but I felt it needed to be said. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
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. Exactly. We should keep in mind that many of the complaints about how Wikipedia’s conduct policies do and don’t work are, IME, hardly unique to us but quite common in many college and university faculties. Perhaps one of the accomplishments of Wikipedia is that it has allowed laypeople to get a taste of that. And not just. It occurs to me how my own way of staying around echoes my father’s advice to any young lawyer joining a large enough firm: find a niche for yourself that will make you an asset to whichever faction is running, or perceived as running, or trying to run, the firm (and there will be factions). Do that and do it well, and don’t get too involved in firm politics, or more than you absolutely have to. He’s told me he was pleasantly surprised to read Richard Pipes, the historian, draw similar conclusions from his experience of the Harvard history department. He’s actually shared a draft of a PDF expanding on this, and it struck me how much his descriptions of a typical law firm echo some people’s descriptions of Wikipedia. Daniel Case___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
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
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
RANT START If these people were behaving the way they do on other websites (i.e. Facebook, certain forums, whatever) or in other educational environments (such as universities, museums) or tech firms (i.e. WMF staff, Google) - they'd eventually be thrown out the door with perhaps even a legal case against them depending on the words they use and the behavior they emit. I'm not saying 24, 2 week, 1 year blocks are the key, I really don't know about that. The internet is safe harbor for assholes because people can chose anonymity. I believe that Wikipedia is failing to be a welcome and safe environment because certain groups of users actively support the keep of these said assholes. I often say to people take it to Encyclopedia Dramatica. There are places where this type of behavior is welcome, and the fact that Wikipedia has become one of those places, is really appalling. I'd rather have ten new users that need to learn about policy and are receptive to learning about it than 1 jerk user who calls people idiots (or worse) who contributes vast quantities of quality content. And frankly, when you act like an asshole in a repeat-offender manner, and people fail to speak up about it, or people fail to make that user see that they aren't making for a civil environment (with effort followed by failure) - what are you stuck with? Waiting for some big drama like MEN'S RIGHTS to erupt or wait until we have another example of about 20 women who proceeded to tell me about the stalkers they've had? It's tiring, and the activities and name calling I see (and on Commons, where there is little done to correct bad behavior) EVERY DAY makes me question if I'm wasting my time. Then I think about the amazing people I've met and continue to meet and the mission of WIkipedia and I have chosen to make this a better place. Across the board most users want a welcome friendly environment. There's always going to be a jerk, but, why should those of us who want civility have to pay the price. And that whole ignore it concept is one I stopped getting behind years ago in some regards. I get tired of saying Oh, ok, I'll let it go. And trying to change the system or rid the community of someone's behavior doesn't mean you have to be vocal about it - you can report it, you an share it with other users, and just by letting people know what's happening can make a bigger impact than ignoring it and being silenced. What are people supposed to do? People are also afraid to do things like speak out, which means that there is a problem. This is one of my favorite punk rock songs of all time: Viva La Revolution by the Adicts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3zBor3A8s0 and it sums up what I feel needs to happen at Wikipedia and it all ends with the revolutionaries drinking the rich man's wine. Sounds good to me. Sarah Who believes in the if you won't say it to my face, don't say it on the internet, idea. And also believes that Kaldari is one of the kindest and most well meaning individuals she has ever met (and yes, I'll say that to his face!). RANT END On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:19 AM, ChaoticFluffy chaoticflu...@gmail.comwrote: There are, in my opinion, a certain number of toxic users on wikipedia, more than there is a toxic environment as a whole. The person Kaldari blocked is one of those people, but certainly not the only one. These people are untouchable, as he quickly discovered, because any attempt to force them to behave in a collegial manner is treated as an attack, and these people cheerfully drive off other contributors - in this particular case, for example, I deliberately avoid, and have for quite a while, touching articles edited by the person Kaldari blocked, because I find aggression extremely alarming, and it's not something I voluntarily put myself in for. Certainly the encyclopedia isn't going to collapse without me editing that subset of articles, but it's still a loss that shouldn't have to be taken. The result of all this is that these vested contributors - and yes, they are exactly that - are able to operate in a bubble that insulates them from sanctions that would stick to nearly any other user. It's ugly, but it's extremely common, and I could name four or five such people off the top of my head, almost all people who fall back on but I generate awesome content! as a reason they should be allowed to be jerks. Risker is, however, very much correct that a 24 hour block was probably one of the poorer choices Kaldari could have made. Not because a block wasn't necessarily called for, but because 24 hours wasn't going to fix this person, and was almost certain to leave them coming back even angrier, even if all 24 hours were served. What's the solution? I don't know, because had he had dropped a six-month or indef block, he'd be in the exact same situation, only with the person's defenders calling him even *nastier* names. The issue of vested, uncivil contributors is a long-term
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
Well, I'm inclined to agree with the defense brigade. How *dare* you think of taking action against such a fantastic contributor!? I mean, you Kaldari, like every other administrator, has never done *anything* to help the encyclopedia! Why do you not bow down before the content contributors? You are merely a high school student on a power trip! /sarcasm By god I hate that man. But there's nothing any one can do about it, as far as I can tell. He has a few admins to in his pocket and no block will ever stick. This incident will only fuel his delusions of persecution. I'm predicting even heavier whinging about how adminship is terrible idea because they might block *him*, as if there's any chance of that. Nepenthe On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: RANT START If these people were behaving the way they do on other websites (i.e. Facebook, certain forums, whatever) or in other educational environments (such as universities, museums) or tech firms (i.e. WMF staff, Google) - they'd eventually be thrown out the door with perhaps even a legal case against them depending on the words they use and the behavior they emit. I'm not saying 24, 2 week, 1 year blocks are the key, I really don't know about that. The internet is safe harbor for assholes because people can chose anonymity. I believe that Wikipedia is failing to be a welcome and safe environment because certain groups of users actively support the keep of these said assholes. I often say to people take it to Encyclopedia Dramatica. There are places where this type of behavior is welcome, and the fact that Wikipedia has become one of those places, is really appalling. I'd rather have ten new users that need to learn about policy and are receptive to learning about it than 1 jerk user who calls people idiots (or worse) who contributes vast quantities of quality content. And frankly, when you act like an asshole in a repeat-offender manner, and people fail to speak up about it, or people fail to make that user see that they aren't making for a civil environment (with effort followed by failure) - what are you stuck with? Waiting for some big drama like MEN'S RIGHTS to erupt or wait until we have another example of about 20 women who proceeded to tell me about the stalkers they've had? It's tiring, and the activities and name calling I see (and on Commons, where there is little done to correct bad behavior) EVERY DAY makes me question if I'm wasting my time. Then I think about the amazing people I've met and continue to meet and the mission of WIkipedia and I have chosen to make this a better place. Across the board most users want a welcome friendly environment. There's always going to be a jerk, but, why should those of us who want civility have to pay the price. And that whole ignore it concept is one I stopped getting behind years ago in some regards. I get tired of saying Oh, ok, I'll let it go. And trying to change the system or rid the community of someone's behavior doesn't mean you have to be vocal about it - you can report it, you an share it with other users, and just by letting people know what's happening can make a bigger impact than ignoring it and being silenced. What are people supposed to do? People are also afraid to do things like speak out, which means that there is a problem. This is one of my favorite punk rock songs of all time: Viva La Revolution by the Adicts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3zBor3A8s0 and it sums up what I feel needs to happen at Wikipedia and it all ends with the revolutionaries drinking the rich man's wine. Sounds good to me. Sarah Who believes in the if you won't say it to my face, don't say it on the internet, idea. And also believes that Kaldari is one of the kindest and most well meaning individuals she has ever met (and yes, I'll say that to his face!). RANT END On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:19 AM, ChaoticFluffy chaoticflu...@gmail.comwrote: There are, in my opinion, a certain number of toxic users on wikipedia, more than there is a toxic environment as a whole. The person Kaldari blocked is one of those people, but certainly not the only one. These people are untouchable, as he quickly discovered, because any attempt to force them to behave in a collegial manner is treated as an attack, and these people cheerfully drive off other contributors - in this particular case, for example, I deliberately avoid, and have for quite a while, touching articles edited by the person Kaldari blocked, because I find aggression extremely alarming, and it's not something I voluntarily put myself in for. Certainly the encyclopedia isn't going to collapse without me editing that subset of articles, but it's still a loss that shouldn't have to be taken. The result of all this is that these vested contributors - and yes, they are exactly that - are able to operate in a bubble that insulates them from
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:19 AM, ChaoticFluffy chaoticflu...@gmail.comwrote: Pete Forsyth's strategy looks good on paper, but my feeling is that for this particular *type* of uncivil editor (as opposed to your garden-variety editor who happens to have lost his temper), an approach of something like you know, you're talking to real people, and your words can come across somewhat hurtful to those people is usually met with I'm polite to people I respect, and I don't respect those people, which is simply no solution at all. Editors who see the right to not be yelled at or name-called as a privilege someone has to earn, rather than as a default right, are, in my opinion, not well-suited to wikipedia. -Fluffernutter Yes, maybe there is a mismatch here between the kind of situation Ryan describes and the experience I was reporting. Sorry if this comment was a distraction; I absolutely agree that there are cases where a stronger response is called for. I think one of the big challenges is that strategies for coping with incivility on a day-to-day basis are often at odds with broader strategies to effect systemic change. Sometimes, the only way to get through a specific situation with one's sanity and dignity intact involves a bit of appeasing or lenience; but in the long run, appeasing and lenience make civility issues more difficult to solve. I don't think there's an easy answer to this tension, but I do think that talking about the various relevant experiences we've had will be useful; so I'm glad this discussion is taking place. I agree completely, by the way, that the I have earned the right to respect or disrespect whomever I please meme should be stamped out and burned with fire. -Pete ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
On 10/26/11 7:19 AM, ChaoticFluffy wrote: The only way to remove these people that has worked in the past has been via arbcom, with enablers screaming bloody murder the whole way. Yes, I've been down that road before, but I will never do it again. The only arbcom case I ever pursued was against a vested contributor who was clearly misogynistic and driving away other editors. Even though I was uninvolved in the dispute that led to the ArbCom case, I was pilloried, harassed, baited, name-called, and threatened with a lawsuit solely because I was willing to confront this editor's behavior and present evidence against them. This editor's friends overwhelmed the ArbCom discussion with absurd conspiracy theories about me, and made their best effort to make my life miserable for the duration of the ArbCom proceeding (including trying to drum up support to have me de-admined). After all was said and done, all of my evidence and arguments were ignored and the editor was banned for a year due to the legal threat. So I'm definitely not going to pursue ArbCom again, and there's no way I'm going to give a vested editor a 6-month block (which would immediately be reversed), so I guess the only solution is to just be silent and allow their abusive behavior to continue. Issuing multiple warnings in these cases is a joke (they are just removed with snarky edit summaries) and peacefully discussing the issue gets absolutely nowhere (at least from my experience), apart from momentarily deflecting their invective towards myself instead of their original target. A friend of mine works as a moderator for Huffington Post and I have to admit that I am quite jealous of their system. The moderators are free to enforce civility and use their best judgement to keep out trolls and trouble-makers. I imagine this is one of the reasons that they have such a vibrant community with a healthy gender balance (according to my friend). Ryan Kaldari ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
I think that we've all had our share of conflict in Wikipedia. I also believe that conflict resolution is a difficult skill to both learn and use, and I suspect that the folks who have difficulty with it on the internet and forums like WP also have difficulty with it IRL. The skills one needs IRL transfer to on-line forums. The issues that have already been brought up confound it. I strongly believe that we are who we are, even on-line, but the anonymity of the internet augments it. IOW, if someone's a jerk on-line, he or she will be a jerk off-line. It takes even more skill to deal with the jerks of the world, and it's worse on-line. Women have been socialized in a certain way to deal with conflict and bullies like this editor seems to be, so we have a particular difficulty with it. Personally, I think the key to dealing with jerks on WP is not blocks, although they're an important tool. People change their behavior, especially if it's entrenched, through relationships and social pressure. I've driven away many a jerk in many a community I've been a part of, but only with the support of others. I'm not saying that you should become friends with this jerk. I'm sure, though, that there has to be other out there who share your opinion, so I would think that a good way to handle it would be to team up with them, and then accumulate evidence regarding his inappropriate behavior. Perhaps all he just needs to learn how to be civil, and some education is necessary. Is it up to us to educate folks about how to behave appropriately on the internet? Sometimes it is. People were kind, generous, and patient with me when I learned, both on-line and off, so why shouldn't I pass that on? I've been lucky enough to avoid some of the conflicts I've seen on WP, mostly because I tend to avoid conflict and because of the articles I tend to edit, which aren't at all controversial. I've had some successes, and some failures, and would like to hear others' experiences. Perhaps this can be a place for that? Christine Username: Figureskatingfan On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: I think one of the big challenges is that strategies for coping with incivility on a day-to-day basis are often at odds with broader strategies to effect systemic change. Sometimes, the only way to get through a specific situation with one's sanity and dignity intact involves a bit of appeasing or lenience; but in the long run, appeasing and lenience make civility issues more difficult to solve. I don't think there's an easy answer to this tension, but I do think that talking about the various relevant experiences we've had will be useful; so I'm glad this discussion is taking place. And that's just it - we have to explore this through systemic change and taking a broad look at everything and seeing what policies can be developed and changed. I have learned to channel my mad as hell mantra into change change change and it'll take time, but it's the best tool and the best weapon that I have (and the rest of us have!). Being civil, having good manners and being nice to one another (wikilove baby!) should not be a bad thing and it seems that Wikipedia in some regards thinks it is. This isn't about censorship, it's about using the manners one's parents and so forth taught them (or at least my parents did) and being civil. What's so bad about that? 3 Sarah -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting *Historical, cultural artistic research advising.* -- http://www.sarahstierch.com/ ___ 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
