On 10/26/2011 1:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari 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.
Off
The particular incident that prompted this thread has spawned a
request for an arbitration case, which apparently is likely to be
accepted.
I think this would be a really good opportunity for the committee to
make a difference with respect to enabling people with a long history
of rude
Apologies for the formatting - the machine stripped the breaks that would
have made my post readable. G (I'm a workman blaming the tools ...) It
should have looked like this:
I’d like to agree with Daniel that “purgative rituals” should be added to
the repertoire of ways to deal with these
I also believe that ArbCom _could_ provide good solutions for these
situations, but the existing model isn't very scalable and doesn't work
for many cases. One potential solution would be for ArbCom to offer the
services of a prosecutor for certain cases, when the person bringing
the complaint
I hate to be overly simplistic but I find in these circumstances that IAR
applies.
Just be courteous to all users involved, even those accused of incivility,
and use the Socratic method. Question them about their actions in a way that
suggests that you are not taking sides (which as an
While I understand the frustrations in this thread, it does us no good
to resort to incivil behavior here, even regarding a person who is
[most likely] not part of this list. I respectfully ask that we
refrain from comments like By god, I hate that man.
Thank you,
LadyofShalott
P.S. I realize
The use of the term collegial to describe the editing milieu. Anyone who has
spent much time in the academe will recognize a lot of the problem
behaviours we see on our own project, particularly personalization of
disputes, which is one of the major elements leading to the perception of
On 27 October 2011 09:07, Daniel and Elizabeth Case danc...@frontiernet.net
wrote:
Ordinarily I would suggest that this thread is a little out of scope for
this list, but given that Sarah's survey shows that what it touches on is a
significant issue for some contributors who responded, I
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
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
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:19 AM, ChaoticFluffy chaoticflu...@gmail.comwrote:
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
On 10/26/11 7:19 AM, ChaoticFluffy wrote:
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.
Yes, I've been down that road before, but I will never do it again. The
only arbcom case I ever pursued was
I think that we've all had our share of conflict in Wikipedia. I also
believe that conflict resolution is a difficult skill to both learn and use,
and I suspect that the folks who have difficulty with it on the internet and
forums like WP also have difficulty with it IRL. The skills one needs
13 matches
Mail list logo
