Hi all,
I personally believe that the only solution to the problem of incivil
users is to warn them once and, if their incivility continues, block
them permanently. Serious incivility and egregrious personal attacks
should be met with an indefinite block immediately. Harsh, perhaps,
but every unci
Because by reacting harshly you create IP-vandals.
-Original Message-
From: larsen.thomas.h
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:29 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How to raise the tone of the wiki
Hi all,
I personally believe that the only solution to the problem of incivil
us
2009/2/11 David Goodman :
> It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
> AfD to be reconfirmed.
[RFA, yeah :-)]
I think the problem here is mission creep. RFA is just the most recent
iteration of how we picked admins, after all, and it itself has
evolved.
If we say now
Andrew Gray wrote:
> Would it be useful at this point to have some idea of how other
> projects do it? I know some have a "normal" deadminning process, but
> I'm not sure how this works - do some have a request-based system,
> some have regular reconfirmation, what?
>
It's hardly going to be use
2009/2/12 Charles Matthews :
> The
> ArbCom culls around 1% of the admin body annually
Is less than that, surely? 1% of the *active* admin body, maybe.
Ok, I've done the sums:
Special:Statistics says we have 1623 admins, 1% of that is 16.
Wikipedia:Former_administrators shows 10 admins desysoppe
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> True enough, only 2008-12-25 is an independent variable. The rest can
> be derived from it. There are algorithms for determining the day of the
> week. When did Christmas last fall on a day other than 25 December?
335 AD.
—C.W.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/12 Charles Matthews :
>
>> The
>> ArbCom culls around 1% of the admin body annually
>>
>
> Is less than that, surely? 1% of the *active* admin body, maybe.
>
> Ok, I've done the sums:
>
> Special:Statistics says we have 1623 admins, 1% of that is 16.
> Wikipedi
2009/2/12 Charles Matthews :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/2/12 Charles Matthews :
>>
>>> The
>>> ArbCom culls around 1% of the admin body annually
>>>
>>
>> Is less than that, surely? 1% of the *active* admin body, maybe.
>>
>> Ok, I've done the sums:
>>
>> Special:Statistics says we have 1623 ad
2009/2/12 Charles Matthews :
> In other words if you're worried about the admin body as a whole, you
> wouldn't ask the question about "how can I get rid of X?" but "is there
> any control of the admins as a whole?" We currrently have desysopping
> that goes on a "worst-case" basis rather than an
Hi Will,
> Because by reacting harshly you create IP-vandals.
How so? If people who are blocked for being uncivil are going to turn
into IP vandals, that's an even greater reason for rejecting uncivil
users outright, i.e., blocking on sight any incivil user. I could be
wrong, of course, but I don
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:33 PM, larsen.thomas.h wrote:
> I could be
> wrong, of course, but I don't think so.
>
> —Thomas Larsen
>
You're wrong. "Uncivil" is a vague term and someone might just be having a
bad day or two (or three). No need to react harshly.
--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
__
> You're wrong. "Uncivil" is a vague term and someone might just be having a
> bad day or two (or three). No need to react harshly.
Nobody should be editing Wikipedia if they are having such a "bad day"
that they are unable to retain their composure and remain polite and
friendly. Harsher reaction
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:33 PM, larsen.thomas.h > wrote:
>
>> I could be
>> wrong, of course, but I don't think so.
>>
>> Thomas Larsen
>>
>
on 2/12/09 6:36 PM, Al Tally at majorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
> You're wrong. "Uncivil" is a vague term and someone might just be having a
> b
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Marc Riddell
wrote:
>
> Alex, there is nothing "vague" about incivility, you know it when you see
> it
> and feel it. And, a person can have as many "bad days" as they want; but on
> those days they should not be posting on the wiki. Exercise some
> self-control o
2009/2/13 Al Tally :
> Often people don't know they're having a bad day, and may respond more
> harshly than they would normally. Not their fault, it's human nature.
There's also people's tendency to be liberal in what they send out and
conservative in what they accept. I remember one person mov
That only works Thomas when editors have full awareness. That is,
other editors have to know what is happening *over here* to *this
other* editor. And they just don't. None of us have a full awareness
of the project. So acting harshly to one editor is not going to
address the behaviour of s
Oh yeah. And if someone, in real life, goes and starts fighting with a
policeman for some reason, well, maybe he's having a bad day, let him
go!
--
Alvaro
On 13-02-2009, at 1:02, Al Tally wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Marc Riddell
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Alex, there is nothing "vague
And the point here is not about "fighting with a policeman". The point
is that two people often fight with *each other*, and when the police
are called, they examine both people and provided there are no bruises
or broken bones, they basically tell them to cool it and stay apart.
They don't ta
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/2/13 Al Tally :
>
> > Often people don't know they're having a bad day, and may respond more
> > harshly than they would normally. Not their fault, it's human nature.
>
> There's also people's tendency to be liberal in what they send out
2009/2/12 David Gerard :
> Indeed. As I suggested, a small amount of enforcement of good
> behaviour amongst the admins by the ArbCom will go a long way to
> getting all admins to behave in a more fitting manner. As Lar pointed
> out, the admin bit is so much of "no big deal" that people will do
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> 2009/2/13 Al Tally :
>>
>>> Often people don't know they're having a bad day, and may respond more
>>> harshly than they would normally. Not their fault, it's human nature.
>>
>> There's also people's tendency to be liberal in what th
Maybe my example's not too clear, but my point is you can't justify
trolling nor excessive arguing with "Hey, let's be nice with him, he's
having a bad day". That way the world would be in a massive chaos.
--
Alvaro
On 13-02-2009, at 1:46, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> And the point here is not
Well, short of things like homicide, we can tolerate it for a day, and
try to fix up the damage & counsel the offender. What we should stop
tolerating is when it becomes repeated consistently over many months
or years.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Alvaro García wrote:
> Maybe my example's not
I think Alvaro the distinction that we should draw is between
"incivility" which may be a one-off, or even a once-per-week, versus
"disruptive behaviour".
It's not cut-and-dry, it's not an easy call and often people make the
wrong call. If I'm antagonized I will respond. Parents might punish
Oh yeah, for one day is acceptable, but if it's been two weeks and he/
she continues like this, some things have to be made!
--
Alvaro
On 12-02-2009, at 22:53, David Goodman wrote:
> Well, short of things like homicide, we can tolerate it for a day, and
> try to fix up the damage & counsel th
Yeah, I made myself clear in other mail.
Cheers
--
Alvaro
On 12-02-2009, at 22:56, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I think Alvaro the distinction that we should draw is between
> "incivility" which may be a one-off, or even a once-per-week, versus
> "disruptive behaviour".
>
> It's not cut-and-dry,
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:33 PM, larsen.thomas.h > wrote:
>
>> I could be
>> wrong, of course, but I don't think so.
>>
>> Thomas Larsen
>>
on 2/12/09 6:36 PM, Al Tally at majorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> You're wrong. "Uncivil" is a vague term and someone might just be having a
> ba
Too late. I have been watching Alex for some time now and I'm very
disturbed. In fact I've alerted the FBI, the CIA, MI-6 and the
Illuminati.
I'm quite certain that Alex will shortly find himself confined in a
very small room somewhere several hundred feet under a mundane gray
building.
Wil
28 matches
Mail list logo
