[Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki

[Ryan Kaldari]

I also believe that ArbCom _could_ provide good solutions for these 
situations, but the existing model isn't very scalable and doesn't work 
for many cases. One potential solution would be for ArbCom to offer the 
services of a "prosecutor" for certain cases, when the person bringing 
the complaint doesn't want to be subjected to further harassment. The 
problem with ArbCom currently is that you have to have a very tough skin 
to go through the process, and in many cases it just makes things worse 
in the short term (which can last for months).

Ryan Kaldari

On 10/27/11 11:50 PM, Gillian White wrote:
> Apologies for the formatting - the machine stripped the breaks that 
> would have made my post readable. Grrrr (I'm a workman blaming the 
> tools ...) It should have looked like this:
>
>     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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20111028/462feb4d/attachment-0001.htm