<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:61216183;
mso-list-template-ids:-1939187690;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I hate to be overly simplistic but I find in these circumstances
that IAR applies. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Anyway, that's just my two cents. Feel free to shoot me for it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Risker<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 28 October 2011 22:26<br>
<b>To:</b> Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<ul type=disc>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>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. <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>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. <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>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. <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>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". <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>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. <o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Risker/Anne <br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>