User talk:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned

Sometimes

...honesty feels too harsh, so people waffle when delivering the message.
...people kill the messenger, so no one tries a second time.
...there's a fan club, and other friends, in a show of support, shout down the friend expressing concern.
...the person delivering the message gets accused of hounding.

Until finally

...an unpopular message happens exactly often enough, and it sticks.

Valereee (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback and discussion from User talk:Barkeep49

I have written a new essay Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. I hope you'll give it a read. (I always feel a bit obnoxious writing on my own talk page, I also write these to be read and so I feel the need to take some advantage of having a bunch of talk page watchers). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've had a few offwiki conversations with people tying this into recent events, I just want to note that this idea has been something I started talking about in a wiki context in 2020. So while some recent events were the spur I needed to write this in essay form, it wasn't recent events that I had in mind as I wrote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very good ... applies to so many cases ... where were their friends when they needed them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of times, they don't listen! Obviously without disclosing any details, I can't tell you how many times I've said to a "wikifriend" that they're headed towards a TBAN or siteban, and they just don't listen. And when people ask, "where were their friends?" I can't quite say, "Oh, we were here, this editor just didn't listen to us," because that would be throwing a friend under a bus. I think the point raised in this essay is a good one, but I think it needs an expansion along the lines of, "...and listen to your friends!". Levivich (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So true ... BTDT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the past I've toyed with the idea of writing an essay, "Please don't be obnoxious, even though there's no rule against it," which is kind of along a similar vein, in the sense that you shouldn't reply to someone giving you advice by saying "but there's no rule against behaving that way". I haven't written it because I didn't think it would reach anyone who could benefit and be receptive to it. (I started an offline draft, "On kindness", with the thesis statement that exhibiting kindness has better long-term results than being uncollaborative, but the problem is... the long term might be way out there.) I started to write that I thought a separate essay on listening to your friends would be better, as the target audience is different, but then thought maybe having a gentle section in this essay ("if someone is giving advice to you, try to truly understand what prompted it and how you might benefit") might help the medicine go down. I suspect, though, that they'll just bounce over it and instead provide their helpful (from their point of view) advice to those opposing them. isaacl (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BK49, along the same lines of what Levivich mentions, you might also expand to include a different scenario. You're trying to have an open, transparent, onWiki discussion with a "friend", explaining where they are wrong, and the peanut gallery chimes in, making the conversation even more difficult, and erasing all your efforts. That is, if you see someone trying to help a friend correct course, stay out of it until they have more or less come to an understanding, and only then weigh in, and only if it will really help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main example I see of "too much friendly advice" is on incidents notice board threads where multiple people start constructing different scenarios based on cascading assumptions regarding an editor's motivations. Unfortunately it's a hard problem to resolve, since many editors want to post a response sooner in hopes of expediting a reply to their personal concerns. I think it would be nice if all editors, friendly, neutral, or otherwise, would defer responding until the subject of the feedback has replied to clarify whether or not various assumptions are correct, or to further explain their point of view. But sadly I can't think of a way to make this happen. isaacl (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We really do need a WP:Stay out of it. Levivich (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, for personal criticism of another's actions as a friend, I think you're probably setting yourself for (some) failure with open, transparent, onWiki discussion. Having a personal or at least a private discussion really is the best way to start the process. It can be hurtful to hear the truth. As much as we like to say "comment on content/action, not contributor", that doesn't stop criticism of action from being a hurtful process. Radical transparency has its place in many or most things, but I'm not sure "you shouldn't have done that" is always the right time for it. As some have noted onwiki, if you get a review of your efforts in the workplace, it's not with the whole department getting the opportunity to have their say; they are deliberately excluded from that discussion. Izno (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well in a 360 review everyone might give their feedback but the results aren't shown publicly and that initial feedback is itself collated privately. That's my backwards way of saying I really agree with this idea and it's something that needs to be incorporated into the essay as it stands now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Wikipedia introduces its own private messaging, though, I'm personally reluctant to use email for this purpose. But I'm one of those who has said a public group conversation is a terrible way to provide criticism, so I don't have any good ideas on how to resolve this problem. Personally, I only like to give feedback when I feel there is a reasonable chance of it being received well. Usually I try to point out how different behaviour would benefit that person's objectives. Unfortunately it often seems like you need to catch the lightning in a bottle at just the right time in order to have an effect. isaacl (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a brewing mess is already at ANI, you are kinda forced to public, and if you go private, the "aggrieved party" can feel excluded or that there was collusion or whatever, because of the lack of transparency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to include the aggrieved party in an initial communication. In the offline world, you might take someone aside and tell them they were being rude to someone else, in hopes they would alter their behaviour towards the other party. Different circumstances can call for different approaches, of course. isaacl (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the great discussion and suggestions. I hope it continues. Levivich is not the first to note to me that sometimes friends do try and end up being unsuccessful or are successful only in mitigating the sanctions (i.e. instead of a CBAN they just get a TBAN). I had intentionally tried to keep the focus narrow and the call to action simple. But maybe it really does need to have 3 parts: talk to your friends, listen to your friends when they talk to you, supporting rather than defending should be the mindset with a friend (tying in both the contradicting on a user talk and noticeboard behavior strands). I will have to see how those ideas percolate in the days and weeks ahead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BK, another piece is that friends can sometimes talk friends down off the ledge if others don't interfere. I have several times been involved in messy ANIs, where I was able to talk a friend down because of knowing what they were going through IRL, and in the cases where I have been successful, it was because others kept the peanut gallery at bay while I tried to get an editor to see reason and see where they were wrong and stop the behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I know exactly what you're talking about here Sandy as I've seen it myself. Thematically I saw that as part of that third topic I outlined above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 Late to the discussion, but I can think of a few other things.

There are a number of editors who just can't take criticism, and if you try, no matter how tactfully and diplomatically you make your case, and no matter on what good terms you are, you'll be put on their "enemies list" and yelled at. Naming no names but I think we can probably all think of one. WP:Unblockables is kind of related to this.

Related to this, in my own wiki-career, I can think of a number of things I shouldn't have done in retrospect, but the "wiki-friends" I had around me would quite happily leap to my defence and proclaim my actions to be perfectly justifiable, so I could sit back and watch them rip the other party to shreds. Partly this might be related to the first point - if I think there are editors who can't take criticism - perhaps there are editors who think I can't take it either? It's possible that they all think I could do no wrong and don't even think that justifiable constructive criticism should be given.

And finally, as Ignore all dramas states - conflict is as addictive as cocaine and the minute potential problems are outlined at ANI, and there's a general consensus that there's a case to answer, the peanut gallery goes ballistic. WP:FRAMGATE is the most obvious example I think of. Did people have a valid point that the WMF shouldn't be issuing bans without discussion, where there's a community-elected body to do that? Absolutely. Did people have a valid point that there were connections, real, alleged or otherwise, with somebody Fram didn't get on with, and a member of the WMF board? Yes, the circumstantial evidence is impossible to ignore. Did people need to resign their admin tools in protest? Well, I don't think so but it's not directly disruptive for them to do so. And, crucially - did I think some (but by no means all) editors were overreacting completely, taking leave of their senses and shrieking hysterically about the situation? Absolutely. And once you get that latter group of people on a juicy ANI thread, there's pretty much nothing you can say or do to stop them braying for punishment. I think need to ram this last point home - I am not saying that a longstanding editor shouldn't be criticised - not at all - but sometimes it's the way they are criticised which is problematic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request section

I'm guessing that copying over the section #Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment was unintended? isaacl (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you contact someone off-wiki?

I didn't know that there was a way to make contact with someone off-wiki except by pressing the thank button. I do not know the e-mails, let alone the real names, of any of the editors that I often work with. Is there a way to get in touch with someone, knowing only their Wiki ID, but to keep the communication private? Bruce leverett (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett You can email specific users by using Special:Email and typing their username. You can send me one to test out the feature if you'd like. Keep in mind that not everyone responds to emails or has the feature enabled. As for real names, no one is obligated to tell you theirs. Usually people that are open about that are open about it on wiki (e.g. Joe Roe is an example of someone who edits using their real name; I hope you don't mind the ping). I wouldn't go asking for people's personal information unless they give it to you, it's very invasive and can make people feel uncomfortable. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]