User:EverSince/Policy bullying

On Wikipedia Policy bullying is an editor using Wikipedia policies in order to get their own way against the spirit of Wikipedia. This can include unnecessarily and excessively citing policies, giving an impression of being an authority on policy regardless of whether policies do actually support a position. It msy involve interpreting or applying policies in a particular way, but implying that it is simply the policy, and that they are black and white matters. There may be a habit of putting others down and/or boosting the self through negative comments relating to some Wikipedia policy.

Policy may be used to intimidate, patronize or demean. An editor may not actually be very knowledgeable on the subject of an article but may nevertheless act as if they are because they know policies. They may use policies and procedures to avoid having to address uncertainties openly and fairly by consensus with other editors involved with a page. These kinds of activities can be described as "misuse of process", indirect or social bullying, camouflaged aggression or relational aggression. Policy bullying may be done by one person alone or in coordinated action with others, perhaps by supporting each other in a particular interpretation of a policy as if it was clear-cut.

What a policy bully is not
Implementing and enforcing Wikipedia policies, and informing others of those policies, is a valued and sometimes difficult function that is not considered bullying. It is when these actions are undertaken inappropriately or excessively, in order for a person to get their way regardless of the spirit of Wikipedia or what is best for Wikipedia, that it could be seen as bullying.

A policy bully could be a WikiTroll, but not necessarily. In fact, a policy bully could do a lot of useful work on Wikipedia and may even be an administrator or trying to become one.

A WikiGnome or a WikiFairy may make a lot of policy-related changes to articles, but they do so in neutral and helpful ways, and are considered friendly.

Responding to policy bullying
Keep to the spirit of Wikipedia, by focusing on improving the article through consensus and being civil. Assume good faith barring clear evidence to the contrary. Try not to let the person wind you up or make you appear to be someone who does indeed not know or respect policy. If they are unnecessarily or excessively citing policies, you could ask them to explain simply any policy they are referring to and exactly how they think it applies.

It may help to bear in mind that they may be unaware of being obfuscating or insulting, whether due to zealousness, defensiveness or limited social skills. They may be unaware of being a policy bully, or think it is justified, because they are convinced they are correct and serving the greater good (and that others editors are not) and may believe they are merely defending a correct position by using and interpreting policies in whatever ways possible to achieve their goal.

If a policy bully ignore your questions or replies but still does not really clarify, or they do clarify but you then still think they are in the wrong, you can access Wikipedia help resources for resolving a dispute. This could include requesting informal voluntary help from an advocate or mediator to help you put across your point of view or bring in more neutral knowledge of Wikipedia policies. You could also engage in more official procedures.

If you find the policy bullying just too difficult or aggravating to deal with yourself, and find yourself in danger of getting sucked in, it may be best to conserve your energy and just leave the article, for a time at least, as frustrating as that can be. It may be best not to try and assign blame for this - either to yourself or to others. If a policy bully feels blamed or undermined, they may seek to portray others as playing the role of victim or martyr regardless of the reality.

Examples of policy bully behaviors
A 2007 peer-reviewed study found that contrasting interpretations of policies could easily give rise to power plays. The study identified, using the methods of grounded theory (Strauss), 7 types of power plays:


 * article scope (what is off-topic in an article)
 * prior consensus (past decisions presented as absolute and uncontested)
 * power of interpretation (a sub-community claiming greater interpretive authority than another)
 * legitimacy of contributor (his/her expertise)
 * threat of sanction (blocking etc.)
 * practice on other pages (other pages being considered models to follow)
 * legitimacy of source (authority of references being disputed)

Four types of power play were exercised by merely interpreting policy. Another power play consisted of blatant violations of policy that were forgiven because the contributor was valued for his contributions despite his lack of respect for rules.

Specific examples off the top of my head include:


 * Citing whole policies as if others aren't aware of them or aren't following them (without justification), rather than dealing with the actual issues being raised and perhaps specific policy issues if necessary.


 * Acting as if they understand all policy perfectly and must automatically be following it.


 * Not listening to others views, only respecting policy citations.


 * Excessive use of article tags or policy citations to over-emphasise issues and then rushing changes through in a way that doesn't allow a reasonable time for response or for consensus to develop


 * Using procedures to avoid engaging with the other editors involved with a page, for example by referring to discussions with other editors elsewhere, or by triggering a peer review without warning or agreement


 * Making critical edit comments or talk page comments that highlight the wrong actions of others while unnecessarily highlighting their own work and superior standards


 * Once having disagreed with an editor, going to other pages to which that editor has contributed and finding and highlighting policy mistakes or violations


 * Making falsely exaggerated suggestions that policies are in support of their position, or against someone else's. These may be phrased in such a way that, if challenged on them, the person can vaguely deny that is what they meant (Plausible deniability) while also trying to make it look like the other person was just being critical or personal (perhaps citing policies against this), and only then adopting a more reasonable position - until the next chance to try to use a policy to get their way.

Should Wikipedia have an anti-bullying policy?
No policy or procedure is a substitute for a culture of trust and openness. However a good policy or procedure may initiate or enhance such a culture if it is deployed judiciously. But people who bully can make counter-claims of bullying against complainants, or even get their 'complaint' in first.