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."
On 10/29/2011 12:45 AM, gendergap-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
In other words, as a community we create a climate where poor behaviour is
the most effective means to motivate needed changes, where our policies and
practices can be used as weapons both to support negative behaviour and also
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 interaction
>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
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 t
it.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Risker
> *Sent:* 28 October 2011 22:26
> *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> *Subject:* Re: [Gendergap] the state
f Of Risker
Sent: 28 October 2011 22:26
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
There are a lot of challenges in being able to develop a consistent process
of managing user behaviour. Here are just a few that I'
There are a lot of challenges in being able to develop a consistent process
of managing user behaviour. Here are just a few that I've noticed over the
years:
- User acting entirely within editing policy, although usually at the
"bolder" end of the spectrum, being accused of behaving extrem
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 complain
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 v
On 27 October 2011 09:07, Daniel and Elizabeth Case 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 think it is for
> now
> re
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 IRL
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 think it is for now
relevant.
I should begin by saying that I, personally, would group my
> I think one of the big challenges is that strategies for coping with
> incivility on a day-to-day basis are often at odds with broader strategies
> to effect systemic change. Sometimes, the only way to get through a specific
> situation with one's sanity and dignity intact involves a bit of appea
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 agai
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:19 AM, ChaoticFluffy wrote:
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'
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
ar
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
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
on 10/26/11 8:28 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) at nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
> Risker, 26/10/2011 07:25:
>> You've treated him like a
>> five-year-old and made him sit on the naughty step - and let's be
>> honest, that barely works with five-year-olds. Treating an adult in
>> that way can be counted on
Risker, 26/10/2011 07:25:
> You've treated him like a
> five-year-old and made him sit on the naughty step - and let's be
> honest, that barely works with five-year-olds. Treating an adult in
> that way can be counted on to have an even more dramatically perverse
> effect than it does on a child.
I think my general approach to Wikipedia is not exactly typical of the
voices commonly heard on the lists, so I want to share a few thoughts here
about how I've approached civility.
Like Anne, I have never felt that punitive measures are terribly effective
at changing behavior; and like Ryan exper
Ryan, you are a kind and good person. So forgive me for having to be
truthful here.
Not once in the history of Wikipedia has a 24-hour block for civility
problems ever resulted in the blocked editor becoming more civil. Instead,
it is almost guaranteed to result in their being *less* civil. I don
In my opinion, civility is a big, big deal, since it has the obvious effect
of running off potentially decent editors. In practice, this can be like
banning an innocent editor.
From,
Emily
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> Earlier today, a long-standing editor was reported
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
