User:Tony1/The "WAS" protocol for admins
WORK IN PROGRESS: SHOULD BE DONE BY 22 JUNE
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: An optional protocol for use where experienced editors who have been uncivil, where, in the admin's judgement, there is a likelihood that a self-healing procedure may work better for the project than an immediate block. |
There are almost no guidelines, protocols or advice for how admins should handle cases of incivility—in particular, dealing with the relationship between an offending user's experience, the protection of the project and other editors, and the potential for healing a heated scenario.
Admins are currently expected to manage incivility on WP with limited documentation or tools to assist in decision-making. This results in inconsistency, confusion and frustration. There is little evidence that blocking protects the project in the long-term or improves the collaborative environment. WP loses a significant number of talented, experienced and hard-working editors from blocking, and the cyclical phenomenon of repeat incivility and blocking is well-known.
Improved admin performance Improved respect for admins and their role Improved outcomes for the project
Blocking for incivility has the potential to be significantly counterproductive. Here's why:
- Incivility almost always arises because one or more editors are angry.
- Anger, like fear, has an unfortunate tendency to spiral (unlike positive emotions). This is particularly the case for experienced editors, who weigh what they will see as their hard work and commitment to WP heavily in terms of self-justification.
- There is ample evidence that blocking does not reduce levels of anger in the blocked editor; it is more likely to fuel repeat offending and repeat blocking, adding to admins' workload. It seems to be an ineffective way of dealing with the anger in the first place. The common notion that we give blocked editors a degree of latitude in "letting off steam" on their own talk page is another sign of this causality. I don't think blocking generally works to protect the project (a policy requirement) or as a tool for behavioural improvement or mediation (a common-sense and highly desirable role for admins).
- There is usually no apology by the blocked editor to the target of their rude or abusive behaviour; thus, the bad feelings remain on an article talk page or wherever else the incident has occurred.
For this reason, I believe admins should be explicitly encouraged—as a matter of standard (not mandatory) practice—to follow a simple protocol: Warned, Apologise, Strike (WAS, if you like). If the breach is serious enough, and provided the editor has not previously demonstrated non-cooperation, the warning should contain:
- a warning that they are in breach of the civility policy;
- a strong suggestion that they apologise to the target of their anger, probably both at the talk page of the article concerned and the talk page of the targeted editor; and
- a strong suggestion that they strike their offending comment.
This might be backed up by a statement that a failure to do so may result in a block (with or without a timeframe: "within X hours").
"The Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes#OverviewNew admin school says that admin intervention can be an art, not a science, that requires a calm demeanour in the face of bitter attacks, a good sense of judgement and a light touch. The new admin school devotes an entire subsection to assessing the participants in a dispute, and stresses the importance of their background and length of service on WP. The School advises:
Keep in mind that the editors who may look the most disruptive, may not actually be the problem. In some complex disputes, a normally good editor may have been goaded into a state of incoherence by a wikistalker, or by harassment from a Tag team of agenda-driven editors. So don't make snap judgments on what you see—just gather the information to get a sense of the history of the participants. Keep an open mind.