User:FT2/Shooterwalker
< User:FT2
Expanded comment for User:Shooterwalker
[edit]- Note this is not a platform matter and is a matter I would undertake as an editor, not an arb, if elected
Having dealt with extremely tendentious edit warriors over several years, I came to understand our usual approach to warriors on massively disrupted articles is better replaced by almost inverting it and going back to basics. Without making a formal proposal at this time, I've been asked to give some hints or an outline. The following observations are central to extreme edit warring:
Basics:
- We are an encyclopedia. Our goal is high quality neutral encyclopedic content.
- Our route to that is good quality, honest, collaborative editing, that complies with policies and norms. Users are not expected to be perfect editors but they are expected to try and honestly comply with our norms and to improve deficiencies.
- Our current handling of problem users who fail to follow those norms is 1/ various kinds of dialog and if those fail 2/ blocking or protection.
- In extreme cases draconian measures may be valid.
Personal observations:
- Edit warring is intensive. It requires almost constant presence of the warrior in a wiki context. An edit warrior wishing to POV skew a topic has to stay "on top of it", because dropping off for a few weeks would allow the article time to sort itself out and the POV nature of their actions on return would be more evident.
- Blocking and other cases require collation of evidence that clearly (and usually egregiously) shows problem conduct. This is exhausting, difficult, distracting from content, invites personal attacks, and is very lawyerable.
- Blocking is a big deal. Removing a content editor is a big deal. So it may not happen for a long time with a skilled warrior, especially if socks are used cleverly. Lawyering becomes possible and some warriors are skilled at it. Socking/meatpuppetry is possible and provides ground for more argument if there is "enough evidence" or whether users are socks.
- Norms and policies exist that address almost everything warriors do, but they only cut in if they do it egregiously enough to make a case. So cases to handle them are a big deal and 'lawyerable too.
- For all these reasons, blocking is a blunt tool. Good faith or chances are rightly given, and tendentious and spurious arguments are easily used to turn resolution into a messy personal dispute. Therefore we find warriors polishing their act "under the block zone" or keeping their conduct below blockable levels (eg civil POV warriors).
Looking at not "normal" edit wars but extreme ones:
- Blocking's a poor choice of tool.
- Waiting until warriors can be "proven" to engage in categorical disruption is too long. Expect good quality editing and collaboration from the get-go.
If you want to fix an extreme warring situation:
- Radical change #1 - Explicitly require a visibly high standard of conduct and editing norms for this page (across the board from sourcing to collaboration). Not just an "ordinary" standard.
- Kills the gap where low grade poor conduct can be used to war
- Kills socking to push for bad sources or balance, because any socks also have to keep a high standard
- Radical change #2 - Drop blocking except as a backup measure. Instead, treat the earliest substandard collaboration/interaction styles or content editing as evidence of insufficient editing skills for this page, which the user must learn to resolve before returning to the page in future.
- Genuine good quality editors will be unaffected
- Encourages learning by those willing to learn
- Also kills the gap where edit warring can bed in
Enjoy putting the pieces together for the rest! (And apologies for the hanging ending, but I really don't want to effectively propose it early! Hopefully this gives enough hints)