On 11/17/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
I will simply re-iterate that there are far more seriously damaging and "poisonous" things happening on Wikipedia, and they are related to extremely weak dispute resolution mechanisms.
Jay.
This is so true, Jay. We squander huge amounts of time and energy dealing with disputes. Do you have any suggestions to improve our dispute resolution mechanisms?
Ok, here is my suggestion. This is a stratagy for dealing with disruptive editors who might turn into good contributers if treated right.
First, a simple example; 1) Newbi is a disruptive moron, HardAss(admin) gives him simple clear instructions on how not to be disruptive moron, once. 2) Newbi replies to HardAss(admin); "Fuck You", and continues to disrupt. 3) HardAss blocks Newbi and gives another short, clear lecture on how to behave 4) Newbi replies by spitting venom and calling for justice over his violated civil rights. 5) Cycle repeats, escalating each time in the tone of rhetoric and length of blocks. 6) Along comes NiceGuy(admin) who sticks up for Newbi, telling him "..listen, I will unblock you, but you gotta do x,y and z..." Thereby supplying a face saving mechanism for Newbi. 7) Newbi either starts to behave, or gets blocked for longer and longer periods
The most common mistake made implementing this strategy is that NiceGuy is overly critical of HardAss, not realising that his mentorship of Newbi won't work without the threat of HardAss looming. Likewise, HardAss often takes it personally when NiceGuy unblocks someone, not realising it as a face saving feature that allows Newbi to behave.
Variation- If Newbi(moron) fails to respond to the first NiceGuy, then both admins proceed to wail on him with a clue stick, until HiceGuy2 comes along :|| (repeat as needed).
Some of the nice things about this strategy are; *Self checking (admins constantly are reviewing each other during implementation) *If done right, Newbi receives repeated, clear instruction on behavior, backed up with blocks *The more idiotic the Newbi, the more effective this strategy *There is room for lots of different authoritarian/mentorship roles here *It can really be fun when done right
see also; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop_bad_cop
Happy Thanksgiving!
Grease Monkee wrote:
The most common mistake made implementing this strategy is that NiceGuy is overly critical of HardAss, not realising that his mentorship of Newbi won't work without the threat of HardAss looming. Likewise, HardAss often takes it personally when NiceGuy unblocks someone, not realising it as a face saving feature that allows Newbi to behave. Some of the nice things about this strategy are; *Self checking (admins constantly are reviewing each other during implementation) *If done right, Newbi receives repeated, clear instruction on behavior, backed up with blocks *The more idiotic the Newbi, the more effective this strategy *There is room for lots of different authoritarian/mentorship roles here *It can really be fun when done right see also; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop_bad_cop
This can also be done by a single admin, e.g. this is mostly what Linuxbeak is applying to his dear little charges - beat them around the head with a cluebat until they realise he means it, then gently suggest they behave with suggestions of how to. It's sometimes more work than it seems like it should be, but can work if the idjit is cluifiable at all.
- d.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
This can also be done by a single admin, e.g. this is mostly what Linuxbeak is applying to his dear little charges - beat them around the head with a cluebat until they realise he means it, then gently suggest they behave with suggestions of how to. It's sometimes more work than it seems like it should be, but can work if the idjit is cluifiable at all.
Don't be too hard on yourself, David.
Peter (Skyring)
Grease Monkee wrote:
First, a simple example;
- Newbi is a disruptive moron, HardAss(admin) gives him simple clear
instructions on how not to be disruptive moron, once. 2) Newbi replies to HardAss(admin); "Fuck You", and continues to disrupt. 3) HardAss blocks Newbi and gives another short, clear lecture on how to behave 4) Newbi replies by spitting venom and calling for justice over his violated civil rights. 5) Cycle repeats, escalating each time in the tone of rhetoric and length of blocks. 6) Along comes NiceGuy(admin) who sticks up for Newbi, telling him "..listen, I will unblock you, but you gotta do x,y and z..." Thereby supplying a face saving mechanism for Newbi. 7) Newbi either starts to behave, or gets blocked for longer and longer periods
The most common mistake made implementing this strategy is that NiceGuy is overly critical of HardAss, not realising that his mentorship of Newbi won't work without the threat of HardAss looming. Likewise, HardAss often takes it personally when NiceGuy unblocks someone, not realising it as a face saving feature that allows Newbi to behave.
Good faith communication among admins is critical to this sort of thing. In such a case, NiceGuy should try to contact HardAss beforehand to get agreement on the strategy. Or _even better_, HardAss admins should seek out NiceGuy admins and say to them "Look here, I've been bonking this guy on the head for a bit, to minimal effect, but if you want to come in and befriend him and try and turn him about, I'm happy to lay off."
--Jimbo
On 11/27/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Grease Monkee wrote:
First, a simple example;
- Newbi is a disruptive moron, HardAss(admin) gives him simple clear
instructions on how not to be disruptive moron, once. 2) Newbi replies to HardAss(admin); "Fuck You", and continues to disrupt. 3) HardAss blocks Newbi and gives another short, clear lecture on how to behave 4) Newbi replies by spitting venom and calling for justice over his violated civil rights. 5) Cycle repeats, escalating each time in the tone of rhetoric and length of blocks. 6) Along comes NiceGuy(admin) who sticks up for Newbi, telling him "..listen, I will unblock you, but you gotta do x,y and z..." Thereby supplying a face saving mechanism for Newbi. 7) Newbi either starts to behave, or gets blocked for longer and longer periods
The most common mistake made implementing this strategy is that NiceGuy is overly critical of HardAss, not realising that his mentorship of Newbi won't work without the threat of HardAss looming. Likewise, HardAss often takes it personally when NiceGuy unblocks someone, not realising it as a face saving feature that allows Newbi to behave.
Good faith communication among admins is critical to this sort of thing. In such a case, NiceGuy should try to contact HardAss beforehand to get agreement on the strategy. Or _even better_, HardAss admins should seek out NiceGuy admins and say to them "Look here, I've been bonking this guy on the head for a bit, to minimal effect, but if you want to come in and befriend him and try and turn him about, I'm happy to lay off."
--Jimbo
True. How is it you always make such good points, Jimbo? Anyway, we should take caution that we don't keep the cycle going forever. If people "Newbie" is still spouting personal attacks after three warnings, they should be blocked with clear note in the reason field so fellow admins know what's going on. If someone is willing to unblock them, they should also make the effort to guide whoever they are unblocking on their way to being a good user.
Mgm
This is the kind of situation where review is very important.
Hardass is doing part of a good job. His job will be easier and more effective if he takes blocks to the administrators' noticeboard, explains why he did what he did, and looks to see what others say. Sometimes this may result in a modification of the original block, though usually he ends up walking away with an agreement that he did the right thing in the circumstances. Whatever happens is better for the wiki than just one lone guy facing up to someone whose behavior seems to him to be unreasonable.
There are other reasons why this review process helps; sometimes inexperienced or ill-informed administrators make mistakes, such as using their sysop powers to pursue editing disputes, or engaging in edit warring in parallel with dispute resolution. If blocks and the like are reviewed (as page protections already are) then this kind of problem gets picked up quicker and solved.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 11/27/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Good faith communication among admins is critical to this sort of thing.
In such a case, NiceGuy should try to contact HardAss beforehand to get agreement on the strategy. Or _even better_, HardAss admins should seek out NiceGuy admins and say to them "Look here, I've been bonking this guy on the head for a bit, to minimal effect, but if you want to come in and befriend him and try and turn him about, I'm happy to lay off."
True. How is it you always make such good points, Jimbo? Anyway, we should take caution that we don't keep the cycle going forever. If people "Newbie" is still spouting personal attacks after three warnings, they should be blocked with clear note in the reason field so fellow admins know what's going on. If someone is willing to unblock them, they should also make the effort to guide whoever they are unblocking on their way to being a good user.
The problem with this mindset is that it focuses on a punitive horizon point. The reference to three warnings suggests that you are focused on what can go wrong rather than what can go right. If NiceGuy is asked to intervene he will know what to do without somebody looking over his shoulder waiting for the unblock to go wrong. Even the notes in the reason field can poison the atmosphere.
Ec