Well, I'm inclined to agree with the defense brigade. How *dare* you think of taking action against such a fantastic contributor!? I mean, you Kaldari, like every other administrator, has never done *anything* to help the encyclopedia! Why do you not bow down before the content contributors? You are merely a high school student on a power trip!
/sarcasm By god I hate that man. But there's nothing any one can do about it, as far as I can tell. He has a few admins to in his pocket and no block will ever stick. This incident will only fuel his delusions of persecution. I'm predicting even heavier whinging about how adminship is terrible idea because they might block *him*, as if there's any chance of that. Nepenthe On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com>wrote: > RANT START > > If these people were behaving the way they do on other websites (i.e. > Facebook, certain forums, whatever) or in other educational environments > (such as universities, museums) or tech firms (i.e. WMF staff, Google) - > they'd eventually be thrown out the door with perhaps even a legal case > against them depending on the words they use and the behavior they emit. I'm > not saying 24, 2 week, 1 year blocks are the key, I really don't know about > that..... > > The internet is safe harbor for assholes because people can chose > anonymity. I believe that Wikipedia is failing to be a welcome and "safe" > environment because certain groups of users actively support the "keep" of > these said assholes. I often say to people "take it to Encyclopedia > Dramatica." There are places where this type of behavior is welcome, and the > fact that Wikipedia has become one of those places, is really appalling. > > I'd rather have ten new users that need to learn about policy and are > receptive to learning about it than 1 jerk user who calls people "idiots" > (or worse) who contributes vast quantities of quality content. > > And frankly, when you act like an asshole in a repeat-offender manner, and > people fail to speak up about it, or people fail to make that user see that > they aren't making for a civil environment (with effort followed by failure) > - what are you stuck with? Waiting for some big drama like MEN'S RIGHTS to > erupt or wait until we have another example of about 20 women who proceeded > to tell me about the stalkers they've had? > > It's tiring, and the activities and name calling I see (and on Commons, > where there is little done to correct bad behavior) EVERY DAY makes me > question if I'm "wasting my time." Then I think about the amazing people > I've met and continue to meet and the mission of WIkipedia and I have chosen > to make this a better place. > > Across the board most users want a welcome friendly environment. There's > always going to be a jerk, but, why should those of us who want civility > have to pay the price. And that whole "ignore it" concept is one I stopped > getting behind years ago in some regards. I get tired of saying "Oh, ok, > I'll let it go." And trying to change the system or rid the community of > someone's behavior doesn't mean you have to be vocal about it - you can > report it, you an share it with other users, and just by letting people know > what's happening can make a bigger impact than "ignoring it" and being > silenced. What are people supposed to do? People are also afraid to do > things like speak out, which means that there is a problem. > > This is one of my favorite punk rock songs of all time: "Viva La > Revolution" by the Adicts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3zBor3A8s0 and > it sums up what I feel needs to happen at Wikipedia and it all ends with the > revolutionaries "drinking the rich man's wine". Sounds good to me. > > Sarah > Who believes in the "if you won't say it to my face, don't say it on the > internet," idea. > And also believes that Kaldari is one of the kindest and most well meaning > individuals she has ever met (and yes, I'll say that to his face!). > > RANT END > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:19 AM, ChaoticFluffy <chaoticflu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> There are, in my opinion, a certain number of toxic users on wikipedia, >> more than there is a toxic environment as a whole. The person Kaldari >> blocked is one of those people, but certainly not the only one. These people >> are untouchable, as he quickly discovered, because any attempt to force them >> to behave in a collegial manner is treated as an attack, and these people >> cheerfully drive off other contributors - in this particular case, for >> example, I deliberately avoid, and have for quite a while, touching articles >> edited by the person Kaldari blocked, because I find aggression extremely >> alarming, and it's not something I voluntarily put myself in for. Certainly >> the encyclopedia isn't going to collapse without me editing that subset of >> articles, but it's still a loss that shouldn't have to be taken. >> >> The result of all this is that these vested contributors - and yes, they >> are exactly that - are able to operate in a bubble that insulates them from >> sanctions that would stick to nearly any other user. It's ugly, but it's >> extremely common, and I could name four or five such people off the top of >> my head, almost all people who fall back on "but I generate awesome >> content!" as a reason they should be allowed to be jerks. >> >> Risker is, however, very much correct that a 24 hour block was probably >> one of the poorer choices Kaldari could have made. Not because a block >> wasn't necessarily called for, but because 24 hours wasn't going to fix this >> person, and was almost certain to leave them coming back even angrier, even >> if all 24 hours were served. What's the solution? I don't know, because had >> he had dropped a six-month or indef block, he'd be in the exact same >> situation, only with the person's defenders calling him even *nastier* >> names. The issue of vested, uncivil contributors is a long-term problem, and >> one that the community has repeatedly failed to deal with, due to the split >> of "enablers" vs "civility police" vs "people sick of seeing this guy >> mentioned on ANI again and why won't everyone just shut up". The only way to >> remove these people that has worked in the past has been via arbcom, with >> enablers screaming bloody murder the whole way. >> >> Pete Forsyth's strategy looks good on paper, but my feeling is that for >> this particular *type* of uncivil editor (as opposed to your garden-variety >> editor who happens to have lost his temper), an approach of something like >> "you know, you're talking to real people, and your words can come across >> somewhat hurtful to those people" is usually met with "I'm polite to people >> I respect, and I don't respect those people", which is simply no solution at >> all. Editors who see the right to not be yelled at or name-called as a >> privilege someone has to earn, rather than as a default right, are, in my >> opinion, not well-suited to wikipedia. >> >> -Fluffernutter >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org>wrote: >> >>> Earlier today, a long-standing editor was reported to AN/I for making >>> personal attacks. The specific attacks were the following two posts: >>> "You simply display your ignorance." >>> "Please carry on, so everyone can see what an ignorant arse you are." >>> >>> As I had recently warned this same user for making personal attacks, and >>> they have a long history of attacking other editors (blocked 4 times >>> previously for personal attacks), I put a 24 hour block on their account >>> for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. >>> >>> Even though this seems like a pretty minor slap on the wrist, my block >>> was quickly undone by another admin and a slew of editors then >>> vociferously attacked me for blocking (calling me a "petty tyrant", a >>> "wannabe big-dick admin", etc.). >>> >>> I looked more carefully at the editor's block log and noticed that every >>> one of their blocks for personal attacks had been undone by another >>> admin (usually without much delay). >>> >>> This seems to say a lot about the current culture of en.wiki. Namely, >>> that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are not taken seriously by our community (or at >>> least a large percentage). As civility seems to be a recurring issue in >>> gendergap discussions (and Sarah's recent survey), I was wondering what >>> people's thoughts on this issue are. Has en.wiki become a toxic >>> environment or am I just overreacting to normal behavior? >>> >>> Ryan Kaldari >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > > -- > GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org> > Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American > Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch> > and > Sarah Stierch Consulting > *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.* > ------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.sarahstierch.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
