User:Timtrent/Kindness as a Standard Operating Procedure

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: When our default approach is Kindness, even in adversity, we get a better reaction from those whom we disagree with, and a better end result for Wikipedia

Work in progress; comments welcome

The other party in the conversation is a living, breathing human being. They have vulnerabilities, strengths, sensitivities, hopes, fears, joys, worries as do we all, as do you. Yours and theirs, they will be different. Yet they are human and have as much right to edit here as do you.

Sometimes we believe, we may even know, that they have broken a rule here. We feel the need to ask them to stop. And we could use the escalating system of warnings here, or we could try a personal message, or we could do both. There is scope in each of the escalating warmings for a personal message, presented to the recipient in italics, or we could craft our own.

Example incidents

Consider these for a use talk page:

Hey, you can't do that, it's against the rules!
I noticed that you [preformed the following action], which you might not know is something we are not allowed to do. I have [taken this action] and hope you understand why. If I can be of any help, please ask me on my user talk page (and link it)

Two takes more time than one, but so what? We don't offend a well meaning editor, especially a new one, and we don;t risk losing them as much as with One.

Now have a look at a 'Drama Board' interaction. Oh, wait, what is a Drama Board?

We have boards, forums, noticeboards, for reporting inappropriate actions by others which we genuinely believe will benefit from community scrutiny. The most heavyweight of these is The Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents, which is where those accused of serious breaches of Wikipedia's rules have a case made for their being sanctioned, and they may make a case in their own favour. There, the community reaches consensus on what action, if any, to take.

Imagine user Foo, has been accused of Bar, a serious breach of what we have all decided is allowed. 'Plugh' is the editor making the accusation:

(Plugh) User Foo has committed the sin of Bar, repeatedly and after multiple friendly and official warnings. Here is the evidence [list of evidence]
(Foo) No I haven't, and you're always trying to accuse me of doing what I haven't done!
(Plugh) You're always doing it, even when I tell you not to, and no I'm not.
(Foo) Yes you are!

This is a continuing dialogue of punch and counterpunch, and gets neither Plugh nor Foo anywhere, and loses the interest of the community. Worse, Foo gets upset. They may already be having a bad day.

Let's run that again, differently. The first two interactions are the same:

(Plugh) User Foo has committed the sin of Bar, repeatedly and after multiple friendly and official warnings. Here is the evidence [list of evidence]
(Foo) No I haven't, and you're always trying to accuse me of doing what I haven't done!
(Plugh) This can only be judged on the evidence presented. I would like to draw the community's attention to [this piece], and my own interactions with Foo [list them], which show concern for their status as a new user [evidence], coupled with a polite entreaty to stop doing Bar. Unfortunately they have ignored several friendly overtures and the formal warning process. This has led us here.

Foo is now not under attack. There is no dialogue between Plugh and Foo, there is evidence presented about their behaviour.

Foo will still find the process stressful, but there is no intent, perceived or otherwise, to hurt, to harm them as a human being. Their behaviour is stated to be unacceptable, not their person. We might criticise Plugh's opening line as being pompous, but I feel we would mention that peaceably to Plugh on their user talk page.

So, Kindness, then?

Are we being kind to Foo?

One could argue that by bringing Foo to a Drama Board at all that we are not. That's worth reading again. Drama boards are to place of last resort when friendly yet assertive advice is ignored. Was our initial advice as well thought out as it might have been? Might we be the problem - would another editor's intercession with Foo bear fruit? Have we done all we can to resolve this without alienating, without hurting Foo? Foo is human, after all.

Is our mode of address to the community appropriate? I believe firmly that using 'you' attacks Foo, and 'they' (or their preferred pronoun) discusses their behaviour. Not 'attacks', but 'discusses', and that is important.

If I show kindness am I not weak

Quite the reverse. Showing kindness demonstrates strength of character, especially in the face of a barrage of 'stuff' from Foo. Determined politeness is nearly the same, but one can be polite unkindly.

Kindness means getting your point across in a manner not intended to hurt, and not causing accidental hurt. It means choosing when not to respond, and when to do so.