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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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...