Emily Monroe wrote:
Any such block for more than 24 hours is likely punitive.
True. Maybe we can do something along the lines of Four 12-24 hour
civility blocks, and you'll be blocked indefinitely. or live
indefinite blocks up to the community. I'd prefer the latter.
Four over
, strongly, with the thesis that we have civility
problems?
-Original Message-
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Aug 12, 2009 12:59 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009
Emily Monroe wrote:
I am an aggressive argumentalist and some take that to be
insulting. But being aggressive is not the same as being uncivil.
I think you're talking about assertiveness, not aggresiveness.
Semantical, I know, but still.
I think you're right, though. May I ask a
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I don't disagree at al', but the arbitration committee have tended to
take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin
toolbox and flag.
Well, in my view, if incivility in an admin is a sign of other problems
(in the spectrum of stress to
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I don't disagree at al', but the arbitration committee have tended to
take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin
toolbox and flag.
Well, in my view, if incivility in an admin is a sign of other
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I'd offer the view that an admin who gets involved as one party in a
long series of trolling may not be suited to the role either. It could
be taken to suggest the admin has an issue with knowing when to step
back, or possibly even too much self-belief in their own
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Emily Monroe wrote:
I am an aggressive argumentalist and some take that to be
insulting. But being aggressive is not the same as being uncivil.
I think you're talking about assertiveness, not aggresiveness.
Semantical, I know, but still.
I think
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Thinking of teh community as a community, it suddenly makes me realise
I have no idea who the community leaders are.
snip
The episodes and characters arbitration cases
were instances crying out for facilitation, not arbitration, and the
arbitration that resulted
Charles Matthews wrote:
I can't go into private discussions I know about, obviously. I've
several times made public my view that we should give admins plenty of
discretion, and balance that by a small number of de-sysops. So I agree
pretty much with what you say. Sympathy needs to be in
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Thinking of teh community as a community, it suddenly makes me realise
I have no idea who the community leaders are.
snip
The episodes and characters arbitration cases
were instances crying out for facilitation, not
Surreptitiousness wrote:
At some point the arbitration committee is going to have to make tough
decisions, if only to see exactly where the chips fall. If the
arbitration committee is sometimes afraid of acting, what hope have we
got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe
2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe that's what
we need to explore once again, maybe we do need to investigate a fork of
the project. Tying this into the Guardian article, maybe a fork would
protect us
David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe that's what
we need to explore once again, maybe we do need to investigate a fork of
the project. Tying this into the Guardian article, maybe
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I'm not
actually blaming the arbitration committee so much as I'm trying to work
out a solution for the problems I perceive, hence me going on to talk
about facilitators. I can't work out if you snipped that because you
felt it was too much jargon.
No - I felt
2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe that's what
we need to explore once again, maybe we do need to investigate a
David Gerard wrote:
Forkability is IMO a drastically important thing to preserving all our
work here. My blog post from two years ago on the subject (update
numbers per Moore's Law):
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/04/10/disaster-recovery-planning/
I agree entirely with this
Charles Matthews wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
I'm not
actually blaming the arbitration committee so much as I'm trying to work
out a solution for the problems I perceive, hence me going on to talk
about facilitators. I can't work out if you snipped that because you
felt it was
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be in favor of a Draft: namespace, which users could use for drafting
articles. Content to be non-spidered. That way we can tell a user to see if
some other user has started work on a draft already.
This would possibly help
On 12 Aug 2009 at 14:59, Emily Monroe wrote:
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Oh, I just love sarcasm on the internet. It leaves so much room for
confusion.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell
FT2 wrote:
I'd be in favor of a Draft: namespace, which users could use for drafting
articles. Content to be non-spidered. That way we can tell a user to see if
some other user has started work on a draft already.
This would possibly help collaboration, ensure only credible articles get
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 12 Aug 2009 at 14:59, Emily Monroe wrote:
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Oh, I just love sarcasm on the internet. It leaves so much room for
confusion.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
I don't think that's an issue, really.
Present process:
- No article exists, google doesn't show anything, any redlinks are
redlinked. and user X or passer-by Y decides to write an article off
their own bat.
Proposed process:
- A draft (but not a mainspace) article exists,
The main obstacle would be getting it used. I can see it being a nice idea
but little used, unfortunately.
If a Draft: space did exist, presumably the main target would be users
unfamiliar with editing norms, to make it easier to start. We might tell new
users:
If you are not experienced at
FT2 wrote:
The main obstacle would be getting it used. I can see it being a nice idea
but little used, unfortunately.
I think if we abolished deletion and rather moved articles to draft
space, you'd see it used a lot. Obviously, really bad articles would be
deleted, but most of those are
FT2 wrote:
Depends, do we see a lot of fixable articles getting deleted due to quality
issues? That would be a reasonable resolution. On the other hand if they
aren't really fixable or they're not encyclopedic, if they haven't much
chance of surviving AFD even if edited a bit more, then it
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Depends, do we see a lot of fixable articles getting deleted due to quality
issues? That would be a reasonable resolution. On the other hand if they
aren't really fixable or they're not encyclopedic, if they haven't much
chance of
It's one way userspace is used right now. But userspace exists for two
purposes - community matters (related to the user, users, project drafting
etc), and article drafting.
We do use userspace for some drafting. But for reasons given it might be
worth splitting those two functions out and using
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
(Snip)
Remember that not all drafts have that in the page title.
It might even be possible to just add a category to all userspace drafts.
Carcharoth
What's nice is that it's intuitive for a new or
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:39 PM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
(Snip)
Remember that not all drafts have that in the page title.
It might even be possible to just add a category to all userspace drafts.
FT2 wrote:
- Dispute resolution is the communally mandated way of resolving all
disputes. Because disputes can be volatile, dispute resolution is expected
to be actively promoted by all users who wish to engage in a dispute,
either
by trying to resolve it, or by referring the
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
ad hominen
What does ad hominen mean?
It means attacking the person that made an argument rather than the
argument itself.
The term can go further than that, though I agree that it's more
commonly
Fayssal F. wrote:
I am afraid it is not accurate. In footbal (soccer), FIFA delivers the same
yellow and red cards to all referees around the world. [[FIFA Disciplinary
Code]] regulates not just civility but far beyond that and it it certainly
governs the professional lives of millions of
Charles Matthews wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
There's a reason why zero tolerance policies are considered unjust in real
life by just about everyone who's thought about them.
Maybe so. There is also a reason or two why appeasement is considered
short-sighted by people who have seen
Emily Monroe wrote:
It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect
work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own
work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others.
I agree. I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary.
Charles Matthews wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
Two words in
your message state what is the main, insidious problem with the Project's
culture: It varies. To be fully productive, to reach its greatest
potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary.
I
In a message dated 8/13/2009 7:32:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com writes:
Depends upon your definition of fixable articles, doesn't it. I think
though, you've really just outlined user space.
I really like the idea of Draft space over user
In a message dated 8/13/2009 5:27:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
d...@tobias.name writes:
Why the doublequote? I notice that all of your messages quote the
message you're replying to twice, once in a trimmed manner above your
reply in the standard interleaved format, but then again in a
Charles Matthews wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
Well, here's an odd thought. If Wikipedia dies, something to do with
our community will probably be the reason.
Odder thought - mailing lists and newsgroups look more vulnerable (to
civility problems, that is). Wikis tend to become dull,
Surreptitiousness wrote:
FT2 wrote:
The main obstacle would be getting it used. I can see it being a nice idea
but little used, unfortunately.
I think if we abolished deletion and rather moved articles to draft
space, you'd see it used a lot. Obviously, really bad articles would
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
My guess is that it would eventually be used as people found out about
it, but it could open up
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:24 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
My guess is that it would eventually
David Goodman wrote:
If we keep draft pages in user space--and I think that a good
idea--perhaps there could actually be a public list of draft pages in
user space, and the understanding that, like all of WP, they are open
to communal editing.
Whether it is communally editable should be
Why the doublequote?
I was completely unaware of the doublequote. I doubt that it even
shows up in my mail program. It doesn't show up in this e-mail, for
example.
You're too wishy-washy to pick top or bottom posting, apparently.
Uh? See above.
Emily
On Aug 13, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Daniel
Any such block for more than 24 hours is likely punitive.
True. Maybe we can do something along the lines of Four 12-24 hour
civility blocks, and you'll be blocked indefinitely. or live
indefinite blocks up to the community. I'd prefer the latter.
Saying we'll give you another chance, and
@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Any such block for more than 24 hours is likely punitive.
True. Maybe we can do something along the lines of Four 12-24 hour
civility blocks, and you'll be blocked indefinitely. or live
indefinite blocks up
-
From: Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Aug 13, 2009 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Any such block for more than 24 hours is likely punitive.
True. Maybe we can do something along the lines
I'll pick one small quote from this:
Why not update the page to reflect that civility isn't a rule you can
bust someone for breaking, but rather a strategy for dispute resolution
that you'll eventually be blocked for not applying?
And the answer is: Because it *is* a rule you can
2009 02:03:47 +0100
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
206791b10908111803v343ac124ua59baa28d0eff...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
How
Fayssal F. wrote:
I am afraid it is not accurate. In footbal (soccer), FIFA delivers the same
yellow and red cards to all referees around the world. [[FIFA Disciplinary
Code]] regulates not just civility but far beyond that and it it certainly
governs the professional lives of millions of
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
There was an article in The Guardian last week about risks and security
policies. The article pointed out that most people didn't respect
security policy because of the limited risk associated
At 09:59 PM 8/11/2009, FT2 wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Marc Riddell
michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote:
Any solution to this problem should start with the simple question: How do
you treat another human being?
The biggest clue isn't some civility standard - it's when some user
Marc Riddell wrote:
The bottom line here is: what can we passengers do about it when we aren't
the ones driving?
Well, I co-wrote a book of 500 pages expressly designed to help newbies
participate and understand the culture. You? Do you blog, at least? I'd
like to know who you think is at
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
Try evasive.
on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Assume good faith in this Project has come to mean Don't ask questions.
That era is finally
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
Try evasive.
on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Assume good faith
Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
Try evasive.
on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
It's good to see you assuming good faith
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
Try evasive.
on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Assume
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
Try evasive.
on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
It's
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
I think the same thing applies to
our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start
blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter
what the provocation.
Do this and you've suddenly made provocation a lot
Ken Arromdee wrote:
There's a reason why zero tolerance policies are considered unjust in real
life by just about everyone who's thought about them.
Maybe so. There is also a reason or two why appeasement is considered
short-sighted by people who have seen it tried.
Charles
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
I think the same thing applies to
our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start
blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter
what
It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect
work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own
work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others.
I agree. I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary. Not
as a punishment, or
It's good to see you assuming good faith and setting an example.
Oh, I just love sarcasm on the internet. It leaves so much room for
confusion.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
Try evasive.
It's good to see you
If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if
they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the
provocation. There has to be a line, and it has to be enforced.
If we do that, then I think we have to give people blocks for BITEing
and BAITing. It's the only way
Consensus process can be tedious in person, where the communication
bandwidth is far higher than mere text, we have tone of voice,
pauses, body language (which is highly efficient compared to text at
communicating intention).
If anyone of you have attended a Quaker worship meeting with
These points do come up, the forums for dispute resolution are open
and free, and those who sit on their hands are definitely not part
of the solution.
I agree. If you don't participate in discussion, don't complain after
the discussion is closed.
Marc IS participating in discussion
I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want
it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer
to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation.
Do this and you've suddenly made provocation a lot more profitable
for the provoker.
Like I
This is meta discussion, equal parts hang-wringing and philosophical debate.
I think what he was referring to was more of the trench-work of promoting
civility: actual involvement in dispute resolution and the application of
the civility policy. I have no idea whether Marc gets involved in the
I think what he was referring to was more of the trench-work of
promoting civility: actual involvement in dispute resolution and the
application of the civility policy.
That's a lot harder than actually working in Wikipedia, true.
I have no idea whether Marc gets involved in the nitty
Emily Monroe wrote:
I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary. Not
as a punishment, or a chance to cool down, but as a way to say Your
attitude is disrupting Wikipedia, and preventing it from improving.
Come back in [12/24 hours/a week/a month/whatever] and we'll give you
2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above
statement applies to him.
Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively refusing
to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the wiki are
actually made.
2009/8/12 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
You'd have thought that would be the argument: Wikipedia is a working
environment, and those who cause the environment to deteriorate are on a
warning. That's where things had got to a couple of years ago, and no
progress has been
Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively
refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the
wiki are actually made. They aren't made here.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know his history.
Emily
On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/12 Emily
2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above
statement applies to him.
Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively refusing
to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the wiki are
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
Try evasive.
on 8/12/09 5:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Emily Monroe wrote:
Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively
refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the
wiki are actually made. They aren't made here.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know his history.
You can be fairly sure that the people on whom
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/8/11 Marc Riddell:
on 8/11/09 4:13 PM, George Herbert at wrote
I am still reviewing the statistics and sum total comments, but some
takeaways I already have -
0. It's a problem.
1. We're not enforcing consistently at all, and that's hurting us.
2. We're
George Herbert wrote:
You're right - a real proper survey would survey new users, and then
users who came and then left. But finding the latter seems hrad.
I think it's unlikely we can put the effort required in to do a proper
statistical survey of the newly departed userbase, and suggest
Marc Riddell wrote:
Two words in
your message state what is the main, insidious problem with the Project's
culture: It varies. To be fully productive, to reach its greatest
potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary.
That seems to be twaddle. I work,
Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
The problem is that the executive suite will sit up there
and watch us ruminate and commiserate and, as they see it, get it out of
our systems as they have many times in the past when this
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
snip
To be fully productive, to reach its greatest
potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary.
To work, to create, at their full potential, a person must be able to focus
on that:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip.
I had a talk page message four days ago
starting That is just silly and ending Be serious. Lack of shared
assumptions, in this case about a navigational template, is something I
feel I ought to be
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
David, you lead not only by insinuation, but by deception.
That's quite an accusation.
I'm still waiting for you to reveal the Foundation-led civility list
you were on. There was one that wasn't. Was that the one you mean?
The Mailing
David Gerard wrote:
snip
Great - now my turn - David, cool it.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 8/12/09 1:18 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/12 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
David, you lead not only by insinuation, but by deception.
That's quite an accusation.
Yes, it is, isn't it.
I'm still waiting for you to reveal the Foundation-led civility
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
snip
To be fully productive, to reach its greatest
potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary.
To work, to create, at their full potential, a person must be able to focus
on
In a message dated 8/12/2009 7:25:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com writes:
Maybe so. There is also a reason or two why appeasement is considered
short-sighted by people who have seen it tried.
There is a middle ground.
W.J.
Marc Riddell wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
snip
To be fully productive, to reach its greatest
potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary.
To work, to create, at their full potential, a person
2009/8/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/8/11 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
Thank you, Thomas, you just made my point. This is exactly the type of focus
and denial I was speaking of.
I'm not denying we have a problem with civility. I got desysopped for
a civility
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
snip
To be fully productive, to reach its greatest
potential and to achieve its stated goals a workplace's culture cannot vary.
To
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
You're right - a real proper survey would survey new users, and then
users who came and then left. But finding the latter seems hrad.
I think it's unlikely we can put the effort required in to do a
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Marc IS participating in discussion here, so I don't see how the above
statement applies to him.
Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:35 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/12 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
You'd have thought that would be the argument: Wikipedia is a working
environment, and those who cause the environment to deteriorate are on a
warning. That's
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
I think the same thing applies to our civility policy. If we want
it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if they refer
to another user as a cunt, no matter what the provocation.
Do this and you've suddenly
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Assume good faith in this Project has come to mean Don't ask questions.
That era is finally over.
I strongly disagree with this. In many corners on-wiki, people of
wildly differing biases and life experiences are
Andrew Gray wrote:
Well, here's an odd thought. If Wikipedia dies, something to do with
our community will probably be the reason.
Nearly a truism these days. BLP issues coming 100 at a time in a sort of
class action suit could do it ...
Odder thought - mailing lists and newsgroups look
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Emily Monroe wrote:
Mostly his habit of complaining on mailing lists and actively
refusing to engage on the wiki itself, where decisions about the
wiki are actually made. They aren't made here.
Oh,
George Herbert wrote:
I have found that in the case of admins behaving badly, the typical
problem is more the backlash against the admin cabal getting in the
way of focusing on the actual abuse, than admins or arbcom or anyone
else standing in the way of warnings or sanctions against the
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Surreptitiousness wrote:
I think the same thing applies to
our civility policy. If we want it to be respected, we have to start
blocking people if they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter
what the provocation.
Do this and you've
Emily Monroe wrote:
It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect
work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own
work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others.
I agree. I sincerely believe that civility blocks are necessary.
Emily Monroe wrote:
If we want it to be respected, we have to start blocking people if
they refer to another user as a cunt, no matter what the
provocation. There has to be a line, and it has to be enforced.
If we do that, then I think we have to give people blocks for BITEing
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
