Just a couple of things to note: * Reporting would not be anonymous (only adjudicating would be). * A statement from both editor's would be included in a case. * I'm not sure how the process could be 'gamed' if the downloaded case was assigned randomly by computer & to more than one adjudicator who decide independently of one another. * Isn't this how murder trials are decided in the off-line world? What is wrong with a jury of your peers?
Separately, > The idea to "not feed trolls" is well engrained into the culture and advise > given by mature and experienced people on the Internet. This is a real bug bear of mine, the perceived wisdom that the solution is simply "not to respond". Without wishing to offend anyone I find the premise is based entirely on the First Amendment. The UK values freedom of speech but it is on a horizontal plane along with other rights and freedoms, NOT a vertical one with freedom of speech at the top. Hate speech not only gets you blocked in the UK, it gets you jailed, and quite rightly in my opinion. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-trolls-isabella-sorley-and-john-nimmo-jailed-for-abusing-feminist-campaigner-caroline-criadoperez-9083829.html Marie Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:25:58 -0400 From: risker...@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists) On 7 July 2014 13:00, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote: >2) the reasons that people enforcing the rules on Wikipedia ignore incivility, harassment, and trolling is because that >approach is often the best way to stop attention seeking behavior. The idea to "not feed trolls" is well engrained into the >culture and advise given by mature and experienced people on the Internet. Or you can just block them firmly when they deserve it, escalate if and when you need to block them again, revoke their talk page access if they continue to use it to troll or harass (they can still use OTRS to request unblock; however, it’s amazing to see how much humbler they get when denied an audience), semi-protect pages they continue to use IPs to make the same problematic edits to and generally make it clear to them they are being eased away from the community. I realize there *is* a small percentage of such users that this will not stop, but in seven years as an admin I *have* seen this approach work much more often than not, regardless of whether said trolls were harassing me or someone else. Interesting to hear your experience, Daniel. It doesn't parallel mine at all, but then perhaps we're looking at different groups of problem users. I've never seen anyone "humbled" by a "behaviour" block, in my experience they're usually gone for good (those ones, I suppose, were humbled) or come back worse behaved but usually in a much sneakier way. Of course, on enwiki we do eventually manage to ban a significant percentage of really bad players over time; not all of them, but a fair number once they've pushed enough buttons and annoyed enough people and lost their supporters. On some projects, it is essentially impossible to ban community members (as opposed to one-off vandal accounts). Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ 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
