Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: Tiptoety ( Talk) & Amorymeltzer ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren ( Talk) |
I think it largely goes without saying that some remedy is needed to address the issues with ChildofMidnight, but the question is what kind, and Ryan Postlethwaite has offered some reasonable proposals on which I have already commented on the main workshop page. I wanted to offer some more in depth thoughts here.
As much as anyone I've found ChildofMidnight's behavior frustrating, but I think we really want to avoid a ban or an extremely lengthy block, at least certainly at this stage. C of M makes good contributions (which is relevant, though not a get-out-of-dodge-free card of course), and there are other paths to pursue aside from a long-term block, and which could end up with the (really quite simple) result we want: for ChildofMidnight to cease with the personal attacks, accusations, and general incivility directed at literally dozens of editors. In theory this should be easy to do, and perhaps even the threat of losing the ability to edit under the ChildofMidnight account will make that editor alter their behavior pattern—obviously that option has not hitherto been on the table.
Rather than a long block or ban, I'd like to see a remedy, similar or identical to Ryan's 3.1, that gives admins more latitude to block C of M the moment a problem comes up. Some of the past blocks have been contentious to the point that a number have been undone, and this has given ChildofMidnight a sense that he has been pursued unjustly by the admin corps (and indeed ArbCom) while he himself has done nothing wrong. I do not at all think this is the case (despite at least a couple of bad blocks, which do happen too often around here), but the fact is many of the past blocks have been at least somewhat debatable. What we have not tried yet is a firm, ArbCom decreed line in the sand: if any admin (or "uninvolved" admin I suppose) thinks you are stepping over the line in terms of civility, you will be blocked, end of story. ChildofMidnight will probably see this as a gross miscarriage of justice, but it might be effective in altering his behavior, simply because he wants to edit and can't do that while blocked.
The last point is also key in terms of thinking about a long-term block or ban. ChildofMidnight has spent a lot of time editing, and I do not think he would just walk away if blocked. Indeed in the past he has strongly expressed the view that we should not care so much if blocked or banned editors are editing under other accounts, rather we should let them do so and actually try to bring them back into the fold. Now I'm not at all saying that these facts mean ChildofMidnight is essentially "unbannable," but our goal here is to end the disruptive activity, so if he is banned but then returns under another name and starts up with some of the same stuff, which continues for a few months before we find out who is behind it, that will have been an obvious failure in terms of a remedy. I'd rather see ChildofMidnight editing under his current account, making the good contributions he clearly makes, and with a tighter leash (pardon the crude phrase) than is currently there whereby crossing the line on civility results in a block. To my mind at least it's worth it to attempt this path before imposing a lengthy block or ban which in itself might not solve the problem. I'll be offering a slight variation on Ryan's remedy 3.1 in a minute, but I think that's the direction we need to go. Obviously thoughts on all of these points are welcome. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Ryan Postlethwaite's proposed remedy 3.1 and the alternatives I've put forward, a certain type of customary remedy usually fails. Wikipedia does not have a good track record for handling people who are productive content editors with civility issues. Civility-based remedies are counterproductive when applied to Wikipedia's best writers. These people are wordsmiths; they straddle the line of blockable behavior with such skill that a single post ties up the attention of dozens of Wikipedians for days.
We need a solution that is proactive rather than reactive. People who are subject to snarks and barbs really don't want the snarks and barbs to happen in the first place. So an effective remedy would limit the opportunity for snarks and barbs to happen. It would also leave the editor as much freedom as feasible in areas where he or she is productive, and it would leave them a measure of dignity and peace.
The proposals I've put forward are based upon observations from years of mentoring. When mentorees came for advice before posting, matters went much more smoothly than when they waited until after a conflict resulted and sought help with the conflict management. Conflict management exhausts everybody; it's a distraction from real priorities.
So my two proposals are a short wish list. Please consider them as an alternative. Durova 412 18:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Durova thanks for posting the more detailed rationale/explanation above. I've no problem with trying this remedy out, the trick will be to find one or more editors to serve as a screener and to get ChildofMidnight on board as well (even as an ArbCom remedy, it won't do much good if ChildofMidnight ignores it or makes things difficult for the screener in some way). It's unfortunate that ChildofMidnight is not really participating here, because it would be good to sound him out on this proposal and begin discussing admins who could possibly serve in the screener role. If and when he begins participating in the case more actively someone who has a decent rapport with C of M should probably talk to him about this idea. Presumably the Arbs will start thinking about a proposed decision or so within the next week if they are still sticking to the March 12th target date, and I'd imagine they'd be much more inclined to support a remedy along these lines if there was some indication that the necessary arrangements were already in the works. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Regarding Bigtimepeace's comment about burnout, it is far less draining to prevent problems than to put out fires. Two of the seven people I mentored over the years turned around from long block logs to become featured content contributors and graduated from mentorship. This proposal is structured to establish a positive feedback loop outside the line of fire of site politics, with a hope of replicating that success. Durova 412 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Please be advised that the arbitrators are now considering the Proposed decision. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: Tiptoety ( Talk) & Amorymeltzer ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren ( Talk) |
I think it largely goes without saying that some remedy is needed to address the issues with ChildofMidnight, but the question is what kind, and Ryan Postlethwaite has offered some reasonable proposals on which I have already commented on the main workshop page. I wanted to offer some more in depth thoughts here.
As much as anyone I've found ChildofMidnight's behavior frustrating, but I think we really want to avoid a ban or an extremely lengthy block, at least certainly at this stage. C of M makes good contributions (which is relevant, though not a get-out-of-dodge-free card of course), and there are other paths to pursue aside from a long-term block, and which could end up with the (really quite simple) result we want: for ChildofMidnight to cease with the personal attacks, accusations, and general incivility directed at literally dozens of editors. In theory this should be easy to do, and perhaps even the threat of losing the ability to edit under the ChildofMidnight account will make that editor alter their behavior pattern—obviously that option has not hitherto been on the table.
Rather than a long block or ban, I'd like to see a remedy, similar or identical to Ryan's 3.1, that gives admins more latitude to block C of M the moment a problem comes up. Some of the past blocks have been contentious to the point that a number have been undone, and this has given ChildofMidnight a sense that he has been pursued unjustly by the admin corps (and indeed ArbCom) while he himself has done nothing wrong. I do not at all think this is the case (despite at least a couple of bad blocks, which do happen too often around here), but the fact is many of the past blocks have been at least somewhat debatable. What we have not tried yet is a firm, ArbCom decreed line in the sand: if any admin (or "uninvolved" admin I suppose) thinks you are stepping over the line in terms of civility, you will be blocked, end of story. ChildofMidnight will probably see this as a gross miscarriage of justice, but it might be effective in altering his behavior, simply because he wants to edit and can't do that while blocked.
The last point is also key in terms of thinking about a long-term block or ban. ChildofMidnight has spent a lot of time editing, and I do not think he would just walk away if blocked. Indeed in the past he has strongly expressed the view that we should not care so much if blocked or banned editors are editing under other accounts, rather we should let them do so and actually try to bring them back into the fold. Now I'm not at all saying that these facts mean ChildofMidnight is essentially "unbannable," but our goal here is to end the disruptive activity, so if he is banned but then returns under another name and starts up with some of the same stuff, which continues for a few months before we find out who is behind it, that will have been an obvious failure in terms of a remedy. I'd rather see ChildofMidnight editing under his current account, making the good contributions he clearly makes, and with a tighter leash (pardon the crude phrase) than is currently there whereby crossing the line on civility results in a block. To my mind at least it's worth it to attempt this path before imposing a lengthy block or ban which in itself might not solve the problem. I'll be offering a slight variation on Ryan's remedy 3.1 in a minute, but I think that's the direction we need to go. Obviously thoughts on all of these points are welcome. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Ryan Postlethwaite's proposed remedy 3.1 and the alternatives I've put forward, a certain type of customary remedy usually fails. Wikipedia does not have a good track record for handling people who are productive content editors with civility issues. Civility-based remedies are counterproductive when applied to Wikipedia's best writers. These people are wordsmiths; they straddle the line of blockable behavior with such skill that a single post ties up the attention of dozens of Wikipedians for days.
We need a solution that is proactive rather than reactive. People who are subject to snarks and barbs really don't want the snarks and barbs to happen in the first place. So an effective remedy would limit the opportunity for snarks and barbs to happen. It would also leave the editor as much freedom as feasible in areas where he or she is productive, and it would leave them a measure of dignity and peace.
The proposals I've put forward are based upon observations from years of mentoring. When mentorees came for advice before posting, matters went much more smoothly than when they waited until after a conflict resulted and sought help with the conflict management. Conflict management exhausts everybody; it's a distraction from real priorities.
So my two proposals are a short wish list. Please consider them as an alternative. Durova 412 18:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Durova thanks for posting the more detailed rationale/explanation above. I've no problem with trying this remedy out, the trick will be to find one or more editors to serve as a screener and to get ChildofMidnight on board as well (even as an ArbCom remedy, it won't do much good if ChildofMidnight ignores it or makes things difficult for the screener in some way). It's unfortunate that ChildofMidnight is not really participating here, because it would be good to sound him out on this proposal and begin discussing admins who could possibly serve in the screener role. If and when he begins participating in the case more actively someone who has a decent rapport with C of M should probably talk to him about this idea. Presumably the Arbs will start thinking about a proposed decision or so within the next week if they are still sticking to the March 12th target date, and I'd imagine they'd be much more inclined to support a remedy along these lines if there was some indication that the necessary arrangements were already in the works. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Regarding Bigtimepeace's comment about burnout, it is far less draining to prevent problems than to put out fires. Two of the seven people I mentored over the years turned around from long block logs to become featured content contributors and graduated from mentorship. This proposal is structured to establish a positive feedback loop outside the line of fire of site politics, with a hope of replicating that success. Durova 412 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Please be advised that the arbitrators are now considering the Proposed decision. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)