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 are people who increasingly edit Wikipedia to edit at certain pages
in project space (AN/I, RFC, RFA, and the ArbCom pages), and user talk
pages, with minimal contributions to, you know, actual articles (and even
there those edits tend towards reverts or other actions related to the
ongoing discussions elsewhere, rather than the sort of expansions or
improvements that are the coin of our realm, the way we all built our trust
within the community once upon a time (well, not in the past tense for me at
least). The aforementioned catty admin enabler, whose recent edit history
I'm looking at at the moment, is a case in point. She isn't editing as much
as she used to, which I take neither joy nor regret in, but even so in the
last month I see just one or two edits to main namespace that aren't
reverts, and those are mainly minor things like wikifying something or
removing a POV phrase or two. Undoubtedly useful, but there's nothing to
rediscover the joy of Wikipedia like really expanding an article, possibly
to GA or FA.
So ... I propose, on an informal basis at first, something like the
purgative rituals that I have read of some primitive peoples having around
tribal wars that are required of both sides regularly during such a
conflict.
Anyone participating in an AN/I that lasts beyond a certain time, or a
certain number of edits, will be required to make at least five purely
editorial edits (it could be things like routine maintenance from the back
of categories like articles needing wikification, articles needing
proofreading, articles needing references improved, and so forth) to actual
articles for every AN/I edit they made before they can post to AN/I again.
Or other high-drama areas. Without collaborating with anyone they were in
the AN/I or other dramalet with. This would go some way to making sure that
everyone really is here to edit an encyclopedia first.
Daniel Case
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 banal 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