User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem

I'm writing down some thoughts provoked by a recent (possibly ongoing) Wikipedia dispute, that spans many articles and includes many editors. My reason for talking about it as a single dispute should become clear as we go along.

Wikipedia attracts many kinds of contributors, of all ages, cultures, beliefs, assumptions, writing styles, and personalities. Different people handle conflict in different ways. Many people are not very accustomed to handling conflict with people who are very different from themselves.

There is a recurring scenario, I believe, that is played out on this website many times each year. It is likely that there are, at any given time, at least two or three of these fires burning, with some degree of heat. The scenario begins with one editor.

The story
We have one editor, Alice, contributing to Wikipedia in the best of faith, happy with the project. He belongs to some demographic that is not the dominant one on en:Wikipedia. Perhaps he is old, perhaps he is from some culture very different from the US, UK, or Australia or New Zealand, where most of our contributors seem to reside. Perhaps he is a "she". For whatever reason, this editor is doing something different, and she is noticed.

Alice may actually go through many conflicts without incident, but eventually, the wrong two people are in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong mood, and it gets ugly. Alice meets Bob, and Bob is another good-faith editor, but one familiar with the mainstream culture of Wikipedia, and perhaps not so familiar with such diversity as we attract here. Bob corrects some edit that Alice made, and Alice reverts, and reacts. Maybe her reaction is to say something in the edit summary that Bob finds rude. Maybe her reaction is a post on the talk page, including some statement which offends Bob. Maybe she is simply quiet, and reacts to the conflict by disappearing, and ignoring messages.

Anyway, Bob remembers Alice as a troublesome editor, and possibly a "troll". Later, Bob and Alice interact again, and it's not much better. Maybe it's worse. This time, Charlie and David notice the brief (or not brief) edit war, and weigh in with some kind of opinion. Let's say this doesn't go well, as far as communication between Alice and the others. Now three people see her as trouble.

Eventually, these people look a little more closely at Alice's edits - just who is this troublesome editor, anyway? They notice a pattern of Alice making some kind of edit against the grain. Perhaps she has a different understanding of fair use, or of the "undue weight" clause of NPOV, or of reliable sources... there could be a million good-faith differences.

Already seeing Alice as trouble, Bob, Charlie and David (now joined by Ed and Frank), realize that Alice isn't simply a little disruptive, but she's on a project-wide spree of undermining WP:RS, a core content policy! At this point, Alice is certain that there is a group of people following her around, reverting and harassing her, after she had edited for four years in relative peace.

The solution?
So... what do we do? Alice is not a bad editor. Bob is not a bad editor, nor are any of his buddies. She feels harassed, and that makes sense. They see a seriously disruptive editor, and that makes sense. Nobody is acting in bad faith, but try telling that to any of A-F, and see how long they listen to you.

What ends up happening is this: B-F put together a Request for Comment, which attracts a little bit of attention. The overall conflict continues, at a low simmer, for a long time, and it ends when Alice either upsets enough people to be banned, or just gets fed up and goes away. In either case, B-F congratulate themselves that they defeated the troll/vandal/spammer/what-have-you.

Wikipedia will always attract editors like Alice, and editors like Alice will always be noticed by editors like Bob.

What can we do, to minimize the harm caused by scenarios such as this one?