User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators

The Plot

You know how it is when you're a hot-shot admin who's stuck in the trenches all day long. It's about lunchtime in Cardiff and you've just come across the six hundred and forty-seventh account in the past half hour, newly-minted and changing the name of the headmaster of Cardinal Newman R.C. School to Gluttony (Cardinal Sin, geddit?). And just as you recover from the laughing fit inevitable after such wit, you see it.

A user's made a civil enquiry. A bit green, perhaps. They're new. A bit confused, maybe. They've got their WP:3O mixed up with their WP:3RR and they're frankly at sea, but they're trying bless 'em. And what response do they get? Perhaps it's your brain that's gone AWOL? and the edit summary hammers the point home as hard as you like: Completely brainless.

Ouch. Can't see that guy coming back in a hurry. So you drop a template on the bitey user's talk page. Just out of curiosity (and let's face it, the wit of Welsh school-children is perhaps best left to someone else) you decide to have a look through their contributions — Let's see if this is a thing or what ... Wow, there are lot of them. More than thirty thousand, in fact. And so many in article space that it's a bit hard to judge their interaction style.

Just for larks, you decide to filter it to the talk namespace. Ah. Now things are a bit clearer. Leave this article to adults, reads one edit summary. Stop taking the piss, begs another. And so it goes on. Time for another template — though now it's serious enough you decide to customise it a bit. Drop some heavy hints that you've got the tools for a reason and you're not afraid to use them. Actually, the account looks vaguely familiar; didn't I have a run-in with this guy about six years ago? Oh well.

Half an hour later, you check back on their talk page. All your templates have disappeared without comment. Oh dear. This doesn't look like a good sign. Then you look in their contributions; not six minutes ago they left a message on some random article's talk, You clearly have no clue how wikipedia is supposed to work or how life is supposed to be lived. Go back and play with your matchbox cars and leave this to the grown-ups with the summary, Completely clueless. Uncivil, bitey, unnecessarily offensive disruption, right here in front of you. What did the community trust you with the tools for, if not to stop exactly this? Blocking vandalous kiddies is all very well in its way, but they probably would have stopped it once the lunch break ended anyway. If they deserve it, how can this guy not? Four and a half seconds later he's blocked for forty-eight hours. That Taught Him.

It's getting late in your timezone and you decide to turn in for the night. It's rather a surprise, when you return to editing at lunch-time the next day, to find no fewer than six complaints about you at ANI, another two (somewhat better written) at AN, 750kB of text (largely abusive) added to your user talk page, and a request for arbitration started in an attempt to have your mop snapped in half. Someone's unblocked him and he's continued on his merry path; he's above all such administrative minutiae. Meanwhile, you have to deal with that bunch of editors over there who'd quite like to introduce you to the pointy ends of their pitchforks.

Analysis

At first blush, you didn't do anything wrong. That guy was one hundred percent in the wrong and you put a stop to it. Kudos to you. Somehow, though, there are a lot of people who don't quite see it that way. It's not immediately clear why, but they seem to think you might be the problem rather than the solution.

You've met a Content Creator. A Content Creator is not just a content creator; a Content Creator is someone for whom creating content is not just on the list of priorities; it is the only priority. Civility be damned, at the very least; edit-warring is great if it's edit-warring in great content; idiots are not to be tolerated or encouraged, as they'd only do idiotic things with your content; all that matters is the content. Let's not beat about the bush: These people add staggering amounts of excellent material to the encyclopaedia. A lot of people admire their work and are immediately prepared to take up a pitch-fork in their defence. They also make a lot of people angry or shy of contributing.

In dealing with the Content Creator, you've made at least four mis-steps.

Of ends and means

While the ends don't justify the means, at the very least the means have to be likely to achieve the ends. Your goal was (or should have been) to prevent disruption. Let's have a quick look back and assess. Have you prevented disruption?

Well, maybe you've stopped the Content Creator from biting a few newbies for a few hours. Well done. You've also sucked in a couple of hundred otherwise-productive editors into a huge bun-fight and, let's face it, the Content Creator is not going to change his ways on this basis. You might argue that a lot of that is not your fault as such, and you might be right. Nonetheless, a realistic assessment is going to have to conclude that it could have been handled better.

No-one deserves a block

Or if they do, that's irrelevant. Blocks have to be preventive, not punitive. Remember thinking, If they deserve it, how can this guy not? You've stepped over the line from prevention to punishment. And you've not prevented a lot. Such people don't care about blocks; they're even tempted to see them as a badge of honour. So the only block that's effective at preventing disruption here is an indefinite one, and then you've lost someone who is undeniably a good contributor to the encyclopaedia. Don't let your weariness with witless vandals make you treat an experienced editor as another one of them.

Blocks are not your only option

So what could you have done differently? What would have actually achieved your ends?

Here's the thing about content creators: They're usually pretty convinced of how amazing they are. If anyone actually tried to tell them how amazing they are, of course the response would be swift and brutal, and if anyone were to post a barnstar on their user talk page then it's likely that some fundamental thingumy would collapse and the universe cease to exist; but underneath all that there's an ego so big it's a wonder it fits underneath all that. They generally think of themselves as the decent, upright half of the community.

Rather than blocking them for incivility, it's probably more effective to find someone they respect to have a quiet word. "I know you were right. But we've all got to rub along, you know? It'd be a nicer place for everyone if you struck the bit about their brain being AWOL. Or even apologised." These people respond better to someone who expects them to behave in a decent and upright way than someone who comes at them with a big stick.

Now, admittedly this approach has its drawbacks. Something like three times in four, it will be ignored. And you've got to find someone the Content Creator actually respects to do it; it's no good if they can write of the person confronting them as just another idiot. But it has upsides: It avoids drama. You avoid being dragged to the stake to arbcom. And there's a small-to-middling chance that they'll do it — and if they do, there's a good chance they'll take it to heart and slowly, gradually change their ways. And isn't that what we really want?

You need to be squeaky clean

You've been around. You've passed an RfA. Sure, it might have been fifteen years ago, but that just shows how long you've been around. If you've been around that long, you've seen this all happen before. And if you've seen all this happen before, you should know what the inevitable reaction is going to be. You shouldn't let that put you off if you think you're doing the right thing — but it should make you pause for thought before you hit the block button. Every editor deserves admins who only block carefully and diligently, but the number of admins who are prepared to block people they know will have a pitchfork-bearing army behind them without taking care — indeed seem to go out of their way to do so — is frankly bewildering.

So here are some things to think about when dealing with such a person.

1. Don't template the regulars. And especially not these people. Their respect is easily lost and once you've lost it, you've lost the only leverage you have with them. The second-quickest way to do so is to post a generic template on their user talk page.
2. Is it really going to do any good? See the discussion above.
3. Is it really causing disruption? It's all too common to see an administrator come across a bit of banter that both the participants are completely fine with and decide it's a problem. Remember, disruption is the standard you're judging by, not potential disruption, potential to cause offence or almost anything else.
4. Is the disruption really ongoing? If you've spotted it three days after it happened, your block review is not going to go well.
5. Were they responding in kind? If the other person has been behaving badly too, you'd better be seen to be even-handed.
6. Do you have history? Sure, by the letter of WP:INVOLVED you're okay - you've never been in a content dispute. But remember that vague feeling you've had a prior run-in? It'd probably be wise to refresh your memory on it and make absolutely certain it can't be used against you. No matter how trivial, no matter how reasonable, any previous dispute will be used to frame you as involved. Consider that they might have a point; few people are the best judges of their own impartiality, even if they think they are.
7. Do you have time to deal with the backlash? Don't block this category of person just before you disappear for eighteen hours. If you don't have the time, it's better to get another admin involved.
8. Do you have the emotional resources to deal with the backlash? It's all too common to see productive, useful admins make a mis-step with these people and be burned out by the backlash. Not only do they do no good by making a mess of the situation, the community loses a good admin. If you're not sure you've got what it takes, get another admin involved.
9. Are absolutely certain about all of the above? If not, get a second opinion. "Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed."

It's tough

All this might be seen to be giving special treatment to people just because they rack up huge edit counts, behave badly and have a private army behind them. Guess what? It is. But your aim is not justice, or equality before the law, but preserving and enhancing the encyclopaedia.