<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
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).<br>
<br>
Ryan Kaldari<br>
<br>
On 10/27/11 11:50 PM, Gillian White wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMrpCZUsTxgBarUttidO=q26LcL8V0K+kqRjELqwbTBRN_0oYA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">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:<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>
<p style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"
class="MsoNormal">
<font size="2">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). </font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>
<p style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"
class="MsoNormal"><font size="2">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.</font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>
<p style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"
class="MsoNormal"><font size="2">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. <br>
</font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>
<p style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"
class="MsoNormal"><font size="2">Other organisations
have to deal with anti-social behaviour
and perhaps we could learn from them. </font><font
size="2">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 </font><font size="2">destructive
</font><font size="2">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).</font></p>
<p style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"
class="MsoNormal"><font size="2"> 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.</font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>
<p style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"
class="MsoNormal"><font size="2">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. </font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>
<p style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"
class="MsoNormal"><font size="2">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?</font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>
<p style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"
class="MsoNormal"><font size="2">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.</font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>
<p style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"
class="MsoNormal"><font size="2">Gillian</font></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>User: Whiteghost.ink <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org">Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>