User:FeydHuxtable/Banning and Duty of care
 | 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: Banning established editors is sometimes needed, but it's best done with care to minimise the hurt. And it's good to give editors a chance to respond appropriately at a ban discussion, rather than expecting them to immediately respond wisely when multiple editors are suddenly saying they are unwelcome at a volunteer project. |
Avoid unnecessary distress for an editor being banned
[edit]
WP:BAN states that editors be "allowed to leave with their pride and dignity intact"
For more than a decade, Wikipedia has tended towards overblown negative statements towards anyone we decide needs a ban. A tendency that may have been amplified by the recent global RW trend towards tribalism.
In the corporate world, when folk are fired, the blow is at least softened by thanking them for what they achieved, and saying it's a case of a bad fit, not insisting the blame is 100% with them. A ban from Wikipedia implies someone is unwelcome even as a volunteer. For someone who has been working for near full time for months or years, as many of our prolific editors do, this can be emotionally crushing.
We should avoid adding to the hurt with careless and unwarranted criticism that implies the editor is not just a bad fit, but a terrible person. For example, with talk of "traumatizing the victims". Which could easily be read as implying the banned editor is a serial abuser, rather than just someone worse than average at causing friction with others.
No criticism is intended to admins that have treated banned editors like this, as they are just acting in line with long standing Wikipedia culture. Looking forward, it would be desirable if this culture can change, and we can start being a little kinder to editors on their way out, i.e. avoid dramatic language implying they are a terrible person. Say it's a case of a bad fit rather than the editor being totally to blame (this is not to say we should change the fact that for any successful ban appeal, the editor has to focus on how they'd improve their own shortcomings.)
Giving the accused a chance
[edit]Policy is clear that Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours before any sanction is implemented to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours ...
Sometimes the editor under scrutiny does not act wisely in such ban discussions, bludgeoning the discussion with excessive replies, counter-criticising instead of focusing on what they could have done better.
In such cases, admins have been known to IAR and close the discussion early, or even indeff the editor early so they can't further respond. There can be good reasons for this; it can avoid stress for the community and even help the to-be-banned editor's prospects of appealing the ban 6-12 months later.
Sometimes an even better alternative may be just to give the user a 12 hour disruption prevention block. This gives the editor a chance to calm down. Few people respond to criticism well in real time. Many who appear to do so are just using their social brain, rather than rapidly understanding what they've done wrong. In the modern workplace, managers are typically trained to criticise in much gentler ways than we typically do on Wikipedia. This effective method is one of the harsher techniques. By giving people a chance to reflect and have a sleep on it, there is a much greater chance the person will respond appropriately.