User:Friday/problem

What's going on?

I recently got an email from an editor who has become disillusioned with the project. This email said, in part:

There are always going to be a few overbearing people... but I believe that the bigger problem is that their approach to steamrolling good editors for no good reason is getting widespread support from admins and ArbCom.

Although it doesn't affect me directly, I have too much empathy to enjoy editing when I see well-meaning editors slammed constantly by people in a position of apparent authority, whether the issue is user boxes, signatures, fair use images, or speedy deletion of articles that are 30 seconds old.

Several years ago Chief Justice Berger of the U.S. Supreme Court said that civility in the practice of law was a significant problem. Well, I have practiced law for nearly 30 years and while there are certainly civility issues, I have rarely seen the level of disrespect of others that I see on Wikipedia day in and day out.

I got more than one email on the subject from more than one editor, and they all basically agreed that there was a real problem here. These weren't newbies, trolls, or myspacers either, these were longtime respected contributors and/or administrators.

More than one longtime contributor has recently left due to this chronic problem. Others have gone on breaks of various lengths to try to find motivation for continued editing. I believe this indicates a real problem. This page is a collection of thoughts about this problem specifically, and problem editors in general.

On dealing with chronic problem editors.

Problem editors who've done little or nothing useful for the project aren't really a concern- they're easy to deal with. They can be blocked, generally without controversy, even indefinitely if need be. It's the folks who are a mix of good and bad that are most difficult to deal with.

If someone's behavior becomes a chronic problem and requires Arbcom attention or other similiar means of dispute resolution, here are some suggestions:

1. Compile a list of diffs showing that multiple editors have told the user in question that their behavior is a problem. If many of the diffs are from admins or other experienced editors, this is good- it shows that it's not just newbies or trolls who see the problem.
2. If you can demonstrate that the user is unwilling to recognize that there's a problem, this may go far in making the case for Arbcom involvement. Nobody's perfect and we all make mistakes- it's how we respond when mistakes are pointed out to us that seperates a good editor from a problem editor. Editors who remain unwilling or unable to recognize the problem, even after it's been pointed out by multiple other editors, may require outside intervention.
3. Unanimous support or criticism is not required. If a user has had their problematic behavior pointed out as above, and they persist, this may require outside intervention even if some editors support their actions. It may depend on the situation and the numbers involved. Even if there's, say, a 50/50 split between supporters and critics, if the actions involved are seen as disruptive by those critics, it's probably wise to discontinue the controversial actions until there's better consensus. If the critics outnumber the supporters by a significant margin, this is an even stronger indication that it's unwise to continue the disputed behavior.
4. Aside from the issue of whether or not the problem editor recognizes that their behavior is a problem, there's the slightly different issue of whether they're willing to compromise. A harmonious editor might say "Well, I still think what I'm doing is good, but since there's disagreement I'll stop for now while we discuss it." If we can demonstrate that the problem editor shows an unwillingness to compromise, this may go far in convince the Arbcom (or others) that outside intervention is needed.
5. If the editor is one about whom there have been many complaints over a long time, some longtime editors may have become jaded and may tend to automatically discount such complaints. In cases like this, it should be clear from reading the RFA (or whatever) that several experienced editors see a continuing problem. Otherwise, people may see it as the same-old-complaining, without merit. Maybe even point out in such cases that there have been frivolous complaints in the past, and ask outside observers to look at the new case with a fresh set of eyes.
6. make it clear that it's the problem behavior that is the target, not the editor himself. We should never have the attitude of "Well, so-and-so is a valuable contributor, therefore whatever she does is OK by definition." We all need to recognize that we all make mistakes, and even the best of us may be foolish at times. Just as we should not forever consider someone wrong for a past mistake, we should not forever consider someone right due to past reasonableness.
7. Try to seperate personal irritation from damage to the project. Some editors may irritate us, sure, but this doesn't automatically mean they're being disruptive in some way. Of course, one could argue that if you're frequently irritating sufficiently large numbers of people, this is disruptive in itself...

What is the problem?

Let's say for example that the problem is civility or some similiar attitude issue. Some might argue, that as long as you're doing the right thing, being a jerk about how you do it is no problem at all. I don't believe this to be the case at all- bad attitudes drive off useful contributors. If a given editor has a history of driving people off the project, this probably indicates a serious problem all by itself. Contributing disharmony and stress to other editors hurts us all. I hesitate to mention the word "community" at all because this is an encyclopedia, not the local beer joint. But, like it or not, editors are people, and people need to observe basic decencies of behavior in order to get along peacefully.

Heat versus light

People often speak of editors making "more heat than light" when their negative contributions outweigh the positive ones. This is useful, but of course this isn't the only circumstance when an editor can be a problem. It's the editors who are a mix of good and bad that are hard to deal with. Perhaps a rule of thumb is, if a significant number of other editors believe you're making more heat than light, even if this view is in the minority, it's probably an indication of sufficiently disruptive behavior that there's a problem that ought to be dealt with.

Drama-seeking behavior

If an editor actually shows signs of enjoying drama, for example, this is a huge indicator of a fundamentally wrong approach. We're here to make an encyclopedia- the drama belongs elsewhere. Try myspace or something.

Challenges

Some problem editors have wide support among other editors. These are probably the hardest to deal with, as they may be unable to accept that their behvaior is a problem. Again, this is a good reason to tread carefully and disguish between criticizing problem behavior and calling for an editor's head. Just as newbies can make good contributions, someone can have a long history of useful contributions and still have problematic behavior.

Face the music

If an editor is frequently told they're rude, for example, by many different editors, and still says they don't know they're being rude, and it's not intentional, what's the deal? In this case, I think there are two possibilities: 1) the person really does know exactly how much of a dick they're being, and they do it anyway, and they're disingenuous about it. We have a word for this, which starts with "t" and ends with "rolling". 2) the only other possibility I can see is that the person in question has such astoundingly poor social/commuication skills that they can routinely be a jerk without knowing it. The solution in both cases might be similiar: trolls need to just go away, and people with such poor social skills need to be put in a position where their interaction with other editors is limited. Sadly, as a collaborative project, I can't immediately see where they'd fit in here.

Caution

It's easy, when you try to deal with problem editors, to become a problem editor yourself. Be careful.

Light at the end of the tunnel?

It's possible, when dealing with chronic problem editors, that things like RFC are irrelevant or unnecessary. Maybe, given enough time, the problem editor's own talk page will turn into a better explanation of the problem than any RFC could ever be.

Admins

If the problem editor is also an admin, this possibly a larger concern, as they have more dangerous tools at their disposal. Ideally, there'd be a means in place to remove adminship from any problem editor. In practice, this can rarely happen until things really go way too far. Luckily, sysop actions can generally be reversed by other sysops, so they must act as a check on each other to limit the harm caused by a problem admin.