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