[Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

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