Antidisruptive

(English) This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikimedians but may not have wide support. This is not policy on Meta, but it may be a policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes.

The disciplinary systems of most Wikiprojects aspire to be antidisruptive, not punitive. What does this mean?

It means they are meant to stop actions or activities that make it harder for Wikiprojects to do their jobs, but they are not supposed to be about punishing the person who performed those actions.

"Aspire" and "supposed to," however, mean that it does not always work this way. The American Pledge of Allegiance makes a big deal out of "freedom and justice for all," so we say the United States of America aspires to serve the causes of freedom and justice, but a look at a history book will show that this has often not been true in practice. However, by aspiring toward an ideal, an organization and its members usually get closer to it than if they did not even try. As in many things, a balance must be struck between acknowledging the way a system really works and aspiring to the way that system should work. Below are some tips to help our disciplinary systems live up to the antidisruptive ideal.

• The most important thing is to identify the disruptive action for the community.
• It matters whether or not the sanctioned user performed the disruptive action.
• Moral value is not relevant.

Acknowledge that all sanctions are punitive

To an extent, "antidisruptive, not punitive" is impossible. All sanctions are punitive and there is no way to remove the punitive element. Sanctions should be antidisruptive in addition to being punitive, but no block, ban or lock can be antidisruptive instead of punitive. The punitive element may be a side effect, but it is absolutely still there. Telling a sanctioned user "You are not allowed to feel bad because it is not a punishment" is likely to make the person feel more wronged and more angry, and it may escalate an already charged situation. Do not correct users who refer to sanctions as punishments; that is what they are.

Always identify the disruptive action

In an antidisruptive disciplinary system, the single most important thing is to identify the action that caused the disruption. Be direct and specific. Do not say "You disrupted something." Say "This edit violates WN:POINT in this way" or "This post of yours counts as WP:BATTLEGROUNDING because you do this" or "your longwinded argument disrupted our project by clogging up the 'recent changes' function." List the reason even if you think the sanctioned user is too stupid to understand you. At least one person reading your post will understand. Because our disciplinary systems are public, you are also speaking to the entire community, and at least a few people will learn for the first time that a given action is considered disruptive on that Wikiproject and decide not to perform it in advance.

Aspiring to being antidisruptive means this isn't supposed to be personal. If making an edit that reads "Widgets are red" is disruptive when Editor A does it, then it would still be disruptive if Editors B through Z were to do it.

If you have a nagging suspicion that a given action wouldn't be disruptive if a different person performed it, then do not sanction Editor A until you figure out why not, and disclose your reason publicly. It's best to be a fair system, but it's better to be a self-aware unfair system than a self-deluding unfair system.

• "I sanctioned Bill and not Bob because Bob does ten times as much work on this project as Bill does" isn't fun for Bill, but it may encourage the community to do more work.
• "I sanctioned Bill and not Bob because Bob's position is supported by sources and Bill's isn't" isn't fun for Bill, but it tells the community that sources are valued more than people's cherished beliefs.
• "I sanctioned Bill and not Bob because Bob has a lot more friends than Bill does" isn't fun for Bill and it isn't fully consistent with the idea that we should all care more about what sources say than people's cherished beliefs, but it tells people who have no chance of achieving their goals not to waste the community's time until they have a convincing proposal fully prepared and what kind of preparation they need to do.
• "I sanctioned Bill and not Bob for making the exact same talk page post because Bob made exactly one copy of that post and Bill has been making some version of that post at least once a month going back three years" isn't fun for Bill but it does establish exactly how Bill's and Bob's actions are different in a larger context.

Why this is a problem

This can prevent the sanctioned person from moving forward antidisruptively. If an admin says, "I am sanctioning you because you did X," when the sanctioned person did not do X, then the sanctioned person might say, "But I did not do X, so therefore I did not do anything wrong; the admin is just being a bully." If the admin says, "I am sanctioning you because you did Y," when the sanctioned person did do Y but Y is not the real reason for the sanction, then the sanctioned person might say "I promise not to do Y again" in good faith, become unblocked, and do whatever the real cause of disruption was again.

Sometimes, we don't always want to admit that we think an action is bad. Wikiprojects aspire to be egalitarian, so if someone disrupted a page by not deferring to someone who outranks them socially, saying so requires us to acknowledge that we haven't lived up to our egalitarian ideals. Wikiprojects are supposed to be about sourcing, so if someone disrupted a page by repeatedly providing proof that the content didn't match the sourcing, saying so requires us to acknowledge that we haven't lived up to our verifiability-loving ideals.

Resist this temptation. Say, head on, "The way WikiThis is supposed to work is for everyone to count equally, but the way it actually works is that Editor Bob is allowed to call you names but you're not allowed to defend yourself in kind. Yes, we're giving Bob special treatment." It's ugly but "Um, Editor Bob didn't call you names! You only imagined it!" while pretending not to see Bob's posts is uglier. "The way WikiThat is supposed to work is for sources to matter more than opinions, but sometimes it does come down to a popularity contest" is ugly, but "Sources? I don't see any sources. Editor Bill is a liar!" while pretending not to see Bill's posts is uglier.

If this kind of contradiction is too difficult for you, then consider all the wonderful ways you can help your project other than participating in the disciplinary system.

Why being open with the sanctioned user matters

Many Wikiprojects have sanction removal policies that require only that the user promise not to perform the disruptive action again. If the real disruptive action is not published, then this unblock policy can fail. Say a user really did X and Y but the official sanctioning notice only mentions X. The sanctioning admin thinks "Everyone knows it was really both X and Y, so this is okay."

• The sanctioned user may request unblock by promising not to do X and be denied by an admin who is part of "everyone" because the sanctioned user did not know they also had to promise not to do Y.
• The sanctioned user may request unblock by promising not to do X, and this request may be granted by an admin who was not part of "everyone." The community may be displeased that the sanctioned user did not promise not to do Y. They may believe the admin had poor judgement when they were only following policy.

The sanction thread and message must be a tool that any person, including the sanctioned user, can use to tell why this person was sanctioned and what they must to to have the sanction lifted.

Why being open with the community matters

Wikieditors are donating something of material value, their time and labor. There is no promise of payment, but there is an understanding that these projects will use those donations the way they say they're going to use them. Almost all Wikiprojects' written policies and guidelines prize egalitarianism and verifiability. Someone might decide to volunteer here because they share those excellent values. By telling not only the sanctioned editor but the entire community "This is the degree to which these policies are followed," we help each individual make an informed decision about how much time and work they want to donate.

Treat erroneous sanctions like any other error—correct them without fanfare

In an antidisruptive system, the second most important thing is whether the sanctioned user performed the disruptive action. This can involve some gray area, but if a sanctioned user can provide reasonable proof that they did not do the thing for which they were sanctioned, then accept it gracefully and either lift, reduce or reexamine the sanction. Perhaps they did do something disruptive but not the exact thing for which they were sanctioned.

If you are the admin who issued the sanction, apologize. It was your job to confirm the facts before issuing the sanction. Whether you imposed an unjustified sanction or gave the sanctioned user inaccurate information, it was still your mistake and your fault. You are a human being and only a volunteer, and mistakes happen, especially on a project this big. Say you made a mistake and you are sorry. Then move on. No ashes or sackcloth necessary.

If you are correcting a sanction made by another admin, do not insist the other admin apologize. If possible, draw no attention to the other admin. It is about the sanction, not the admin who placed it. The other admin is a human being and only a volunteer, and mistakes happen, especially on a project this big.

If you feel disrespected or as if your authority is undermined when someone corrects you on an objective, factual matter (as opposed to on a subjective matter or a matter of interpretation), perhaps the disciplinary system is not for you.

Do not ascribe moral value to Wiki misconduct

An antidisruptive system is not about fostering ethics or teaching the punished person a lesson. Whether or not the sanctioned editor appears sorry for their actions is not relevant to whether the sanction should be kept or lifted. All that is necessary is to identify the disruptive action (sanctioning authority's job) and a promise not to repeat said action (sanctioned user's job).

Most of us learned about disciplinary systems as schoolchildren. Yes, the teachers wanted enough silence so they could carry on with lessons, but they also wanted to teach the children to be good people. It wasn't solely "Don't do that because it's noisy." It was also "Don't do that because that's bad." That reflex can be counterproductive here.

Ideally, a user sanctioned for an immoral act, like harassment or lying, would say they're sorry, but it is not necessary. For a morally neutral act, like edit warring or making longwinded posts, it is even less necessary.

This is because many of the things considered disruptive of the normal course of business on Wikiprojects are the normal course of business on other parts of the Internet. An editor who says, "Next time I feel like [performing disruptive action], I will go to [other site where that action is normal]" is a good candidate for the lifting of that sanction. Yes, they've shown that they feel no remorse, but they've clearly recognized that the Wikiproject is not the place for that action and they have a plan for scratching any itch that may arise. We're here to build encyclopedias and dictionaries and publish the news, not promote the One True Internet Etiquette.

Avoid the schoolteacher mindset

It is tempting for admins to model what they saw as schoolchildren and think of themselves as teachers who must get the little boys and little girls to behave. In all-adult situations, however, that is counterproductive. People can tell when they are being infantilized, and this usually makes them angry. Remember, teachers can demand to be deferred to without question because they are adults, and adults almost always know better than literal children. On Wikiprojects, we are all adults or teenagers acting in adult capacity, and content creators often know more about their specialized area than the admins working the disciplinary system do. Real-life teachers can also demand to be deferred to because of their degrees in education and years of formal training, which their students do not have. Wikiprojects are anonymous. Even Wikieditors who do happen to have years of formal training cannot prove it, so they must not demand to be deferred to without question.

Avoid using words that teachers use with little children. For example, say "posts" instead of "behavior." Do not complain that someone has an "authority problem." You do not have as much authority over other users that teachers have over their students or that employers have over their employees.

Try thinking of yourself more like the bouncer at a bar. Consider the motto "Do what you like but don't do it here."

Never violate policy

If the sanctioned user can point to a specific policy that says they are allowed to perform the action in question, do not "use your judgement" to punish them anyway. First, tell the user to stop for the time being. Then go to the policy page and propose amending it. Use the user's actions as an example. Consider inviting the user to participate in the discussion.

If the user has misinterpreted policy or if policy has drifted away from a literal interpretation of the rules, say so. For example, on the English Wikipedia, sanctions.user seems to say that no sanction given at AE (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement) may last more than one year. However, admins have interpreted this to mean that all AE sanctions automatically become normal sanctions after one year, and they have done so since at least 2015. Showing the user that something is longstanding practice and that the admins did not break the rules on the spot to make a new punishment can dispel anger, prevent drama and preserve confidence in the admin part of our community.

Always give the real reason

There may be some extreme cases in which a user must be sanctioned despite doing absolutely nothing wrong. For example, if someone is the target of disruptive harassment or impersonation, removing the victim may have a net benefit for the project. In such a case, the admin should apologize to the sanctioned user and acknowledge publicly that the sanction is being laid despite the fact that the sanction-ee did not violate any rules.

Since this scenario is grossly unfair, it may be tempting to tell the community or ourselves that the sanction-ee really did do something wrong and then exaggerate it or round it up. Resist this urge.

Want less drama? Deescalate

Disciplinary proceedings tend to be highly charged and any of the participants can get emotional. Here are some ways to dispel negative emotions and smooth out the process.

• If an accused user can disprove part of the claim against them, acknowledge it, as in "Oh, so you can prove you did not violate WP:THIS, but I still believe you violated WP:THAT." This will show the accused user without a doubt that you are reading and processing their posts. They will feel heard and it will be easier for them to believe they are being treated fairly.
• Apologize.
• SLOW THINGS DOWN. People who feel attacked often respond on reflex. Instead, give everyone time to read the complaint thoroughly. Promise the accused that no sanction will be laid until after they have had a chance to compose a careful reply.
• Acknowledge those parts of the accusation that may not be merited. ("You are accused of adding material without sources, but I can see you provided one source. Let's drop that accusation for now and focus on the rest of the complaint instead.")
• Avoid traditionally insulting accusations. There are many cultures in which calling someone a liar is very serious, and the person is honor-bound to refute it.
• Acknowledge times when the system is not fair.
• Avoid anything that suggests magic or mind-reading. Do not issue a sanction that would require you to know what someone was thinking when they made a post. Use observable actions only. When you draw an inference, acknowledge that it is only a guess. Never require anyone else to read your mind or guess.
• Remember that your own thoughts are clear and obvious to you but may not be so to other people.
• Do not demand that anyone pretend. Do not expect sanctioned users to pretend that they feel they deserved the sanction. Do not demand that sanctioned users pretend they think they are wrong about content if they are still convinced they are right. Their unvoiced thoughts are not disruptive. Do not demand that someone who is topic banned pretend that they do not know anything about the topic. Their knowledge is not disruptive. Demand only action and the cessation of action.