User:Tony1/The "WAS" protocol for admins

WORK IN PROGRESS: SHOULD BE DONE BY 22 JUNE

There are almost no guidelines, protocols or advice for how admins should handle cases of incivility—in particular, dealing with the relationship between an offending user's experience, the protection of the project and other editors, and the potential for healing a heated scenario.

Admins are currently expected to manage incivility on WP with limited documentation or tools to assist in decision-making. This results in inconsistency, confusion and frustration. There is little evidence that blocking protects the project in the long-term or improves the collaborative environment. WP loses a significant number of talented, experienced and hard-working editors from blocking, and the cyclical phenomenon of repeat incivility and blocking is well-known.

Improved admin performance Improved respect for admins and their role Improved outcomes for the project

Blocking for incivility has the potential to be significantly counterproductive. Here's why:
 * 1) Incivility almost always arises because one or more editors are angry.
 * 2) Anger, like fear, has an unfortunate tendency to spiral (unlike positive emotions). This is particularly the case for experienced editors, who weigh what they will see as their hard work and commitment to WP heavily in terms of self-justification.
 * 3) There is ample evidence that blocking does not reduce levels of anger in the blocked editor; it is more likely to fuel repeat offending and repeat blocking, adding to admins' workload. It seems to be an ineffective way of dealing with the anger in the first place. The common notion that we give blocked editors a degree of latitude in "letting off steam" on their own talk page is another sign of this causality. I don't think blocking generally works to protect the project (a policy requirement) or as a tool for behavioural improvement or mediation (a common-sense and highly desirable role for admins).
 * 4) There is usually no apology by the blocked editor to the target of their rude or abusive behaviour; thus, the bad feelings remain on an article talk page or wherever else the incident has occurred.

For this reason, I believe admins should be explicitly encouraged—as a matter of standard (not mandatory) practice—to follow a simple protocol: Warned, Apologise, Strike (WAS, if you like). If the breach is serious enough, and provided the editor has not previously demonstrated non-cooperation, the warning should contain: This might be backed up by a statement that a failure to do so may result in a block (with or without a timeframe: "within X hours").
 * a warning that they are in breach of the civility policy;
 * a strong suggestion that they apologise to the target of their anger, probably both at the talk page of the article concerned and the talk page of the targeted editor; and
 * a strong suggestion that they strike their offending comment.

"The New admin school/Dealing with disputes says that admin intervention can be an art, not a science, that requires a calm demeanour in the face of bitter attacks, a good sense of judgement and a light touch. The new admin school devotes an entire subsection to assessing the participants in a dispute, and stresses the importance of their background and length of service on WP. The School advises: "Keep in mind that the editors who may look the most disruptive, may not actually be the problem. In some complex disputes, a normally good editor may have been goaded into a state of incoherence by a wikistalker, or by harassment from a Tag team of agenda-driven editors. So don't make snap judgments on what you see—just gather the information to get a sense of the history of the participants. Keep an open mind."

<!--Of course, the abusive anon/vandal deserves the prompt block, and admins' time is limited. But it is self-evident that in other cases, requiring such a withdrawal and an apology stands a much better chance of restoring calm to a venue, and minimising the risk of a cycle of repeated incivility and blocking. A WAS protocol would save a lot of angst in the community about blocking. It would be good for relationships between editors, and between non-admins and admins. It would be likely to be therapeutic; people usually feel better about themselves and their colleagues after an apology (even one that comes at the strong suggestion of someone else). Rude and abusive editors who do not apologise are probably worth blocking for longer than one might otherwise do, and a note in their block-log would send a clear message to both them and subsequent admins who find themselves having to deal with their behaviour.

I believe WAS should be written into both WP:ADMIN and WP:BLOCKING to encourage a change in the culture of dealing with incivility, from the relatively easy "block first" that we too often see in situations involving experienced editors, to a role that requires admins to exercise a slightly more mediating role, educating editors about the right thing to do when they have overstepped the limits, and more effectively calming editor anger. I don't claim that this would always work, but I do believe it would be much more effective in achieving the policy aims in a significant proportion of cases.

I am interested in the opinions of both non-admins and admins on this.

Wikipedia:Block#Cool-down_blocks

-->
 * I wholly agree that there may be too much knee-jerk blocking for incivility. I have quite often found that a dispute spirals because the parties lack external input to resolve a deadlock; or if such input exists, one or other fails to listen to that input because it is not from someone not considered 'sufficiently neutral' by one side or another. Of course an apology is the best way of smoothing the waters in the longer term, but a forced apology is often disgruntled and remains couched in resentment. While it's possible that one side is wholly intransigent, quite often it involves something the "other side" has done too. Admins should therefore work on mediating skills, in bringing neutrality and objectivity to the dispute. They should attempt to target the root cause of the dispute rather than seeking a simplistic apology. Of course, it will take time and patience to wade through the history of the dispute. It could be further complicated because of a historical grievance, but there is almost always a more immediate trigger at the dispute concerned. Once the root cause is addressed, I believe the apology will be more forthcoming and natural. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The strong suggestion that the incivility be retracted (struck through) and and apology made are the right messages to send. What is initially a strongly worded option can, in retrospect, appear the obvious thing to do by someone who has been offensive; most people feel better a while after making an apology. The avoidance of blocking except as a last resort, I believe, has therapeutic value. Tony   (talk)  04:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the biggest offenders on incivility on en.wiki are admins and there's no way that any admin is going to do anything but fiercely stand up for the rights of a fellow admin to be incivil. In fact, on AN/I, I assume if there is a gross incivility and a posse standing up for the editor who is being offensive that it's an admin doing the offending and a group of admins + non-admin friends of the offender gathered around to get in free shots against the victim.  It will simply be one more way that administrators don't and won't lead by example while giving administrators an additional weapon to interfere with lowly editors acting as bad as the example that is set for them.
 * Admins should set the example first. And I don't see that coming.  --KP Botany (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Botany, this is a little off-topic; see AdminReview and the straw poll concerning desysopping. Someone has to draw the boundaries of civility, and best admins to do this. The proposal here concerns how they do this. Tony   (talk)  08:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-apology apology