User:Ling.Nut/Siege

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: State your point. Retreat gracefully. Apologize – gasp! – in the face of a truculent response. Disarm your interlocutor. Subduing one's opponent without fighting is not only the highest form of mastery, it is also a winning solution for all editors involved, as well as the encyclopedia. Rather than enforce, teach.. Rather than lecture, demonstrate. Rather than confront, retreat gracefully.

For the record, Wikipedia owes a great debt to its 851 volunteer admins, of whom perhaps 570 are active as editors. The encyclopedia is a success, despite its faults; its 6,915,116 articles currently comprise the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet. Much of the credit for this success is due to admins. Sometimes working behind the scenes, and sometimes very much in the thick of a madding crowd, admins strive to maintain order among Wikipedians, and to tidy up all the detritus associated with the monumental amount of labor that has been invested in the project by thousands of editors. Being granted the status of admin is often referred to as "getting the mop", and many of the labors they face are comparable to cleaning the Augean Stables. After a hard day of arguing with edit warriors they wipe the sweat from their brows and log off, knowing that the next time they log in again, things will be pretty much the same – perhaps with a different gathering of harmful or unhelpful users, but perhaps not.

And yet for all their plainly apparent value to Wikipedia and its community of editors, admins remain an oft-maligned crew. Accusations are as legion as accusers: Admins are too imperious. Admins pursue vendettas. Admins travel in small packs, and always have each others' backs. And so on. At first glance, these might seem susceptible to a simple Sticks and Stones line of defense. But calumny is a toxic and cumulative poison, especially when taken together with chafing verbal conflict and aggressive behavior, and even more especially when experienced in recurring doses. In certain low-frequency but accelerated-risk scenarios, the need for self-defense goes even further, leading some admins to self-identify as being willing to make difficult blocks in response to threats and harassment off-site or in real life because of administrative actions they have taken on Wikipedia. It begins to appear that those who are granted the mop should also be issued hazmat and bombsuits.

A hefty share of the blame for this toxic environment can be laid squarely on the shoulders of the accusers. Most of Wikipedia's thousands of editors collaborate constructively, adding facts, files and images to the encyclopedia. A persistent minority behaves in other ways. Deep personal investment in the topic of an article, or investment of an unhealthy amount of ego into the content one has added, can lead to a tendentious or disruptive editing style that seeks to protect a preferred version of an article, perhaps over an extended time frame. This in turn engenders conflict, which necessitates admin involvement, and seldom leads to a happy ending.

And yes. There have been some admins in the past who were simply bad eggs, and there probably are still some in the present. WP:RFA is not a crystal ball or a magic gate. In any regulating process that has granted extended editing rights to over 1,700 (largely anonymous) people based solely on their contributions to a single outlet, the occasional release of effluent is unavoidable. The good news is, though the wheels of justice may turn slowly, they do turn. Bad admins eventually become ex-admins.

General principles

The causes discussed above deal with individual contributors whose arbitrary behavior is a source of conflict and ill-will. Are their systemic variables that contribute to this problem? I believe there are.

A conflict of inexorable logics

Popular conception of admin behavior at an edit war. The alpha admin speaks down from a commanding position. At his shoulder is a small cluster of other admins, prepared to strike at any sign of disrespect. The disfavored party in the dispute is clapped in chains and led away to the stocks. The favored party is granted a horse and a suit of armor, and bade to ride off and possess whatever demesnes seem appealing. All participants focus solely on one another, while the article burns unnoticed in the distance.(*Vercingétorix jette ses armes aux pieds de Jules César*, 1899, by Lionel-Noël Royer).

Behold the common edit war. More than any other ailment afflicting Wikipedia, it is the recurring cycle of wound and infection stemming from edit wars that demands the attention and energies of Wikipedia's administration, mediation and arbitration processes. Vandals may come in hordes, but their efforts can be brushed aside with a flick of an automated tool. With a few notable exceptions, trolls do not tend to attract enough community support to prevent an eventual ban from editing – and when they are banned, the problems tend to cease. All too often, however, edit wars are forever.

The popular perception of admins is neatly summed up in this bullet point list shamelessly ripped off from a user page:

Edit wars are the domain of children, vandals, and arrogant admins.
I stay reasonably civil at most times, even in cases of condescending behaviour by children and admins.
I sometime [sic] give short shrift to pompous or patronising editors who try to behave like admins.
I know for a fact that some admins misuse their powers, but I know better than to argue with them.
Dispute resolution almost always concludes in the favour of admins and self-appointed Wikipedia policemen.

... and while I was slumming in the back alleys of Wikipedia, I found this on yet another user page:

We all have our pluses and minuses, both in real life and in Wikipedia. The problem is that most admins treat people on a binary basis – you are either good or you are evil -- failing to recognize the positives in the people they deem evil and failing to see the negatives of the people they have judged good. The goal ought to be to seek ways to maximize the positive from each editor. Wikipedia:Blocking policy's mandate is that blocks are intended "to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems", an approach that might have some success with vandals. The unfortunate reality is that blocks to experienced editors end up being punitive. They are applied in an "all your edits are bad" approach that fails to solve the issue at hand and only ends up creating more problems than they seek to solve. The real problem is finding admins who have the common sense needed to apply blocks that push people from areas where there are challenges to areas where they genuinely benefit this project.

In addition to overall Wikipedia experience of a flexible number of months (many people suggest at least six), and a competent knowledge of the pillars and policies of the site, admins are generally expected to demonstrate these qualities:

a balanced blend of caution and self-confidence;
the ability to be neutral, and to understand and empathize with the perspectives of both non-admins and admins;
the ability to apply the admin policies to specific situations and to distinguish relevant from irrelevant information;
competence in written communication
the ability to seek advice from other experienced editors where necessary.