-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [email protected] wrote: > > In a message dated 2/15/2009 7:36:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > [email protected] wrote: >> Indefinite blocks (until the editor bows to random authority) >> for "incivility" are overboard. Esp. in light of the fact that >> the vast majority of admins take no time > to >> determine the cause of the incivility. Many cases of "incivility" >> are in-my-mind completely justified. Indefinite blocks do nothing >> but inflame the situation. >> >> Will Johnson >> >> >> >> In a message dated 2/15/2009 11:50:24 A.M. Pacific Standard >> Time, [email protected] writes: >> >> No, I don't think so. Short 3RR blocks for incivility would be >> punitive since the logic would be "For incivility you get a 24H >> block as punishment". I would posit that a warning to the >> editor would suffice, then based on the asshattedness of the >> editor, a preventative block. Unblock as soon as they assert >> that they will not repeat the offense. >> >> (this message will be PGP signed on request) >> >> >> Jon > ----------- > > Jon my response was to the idea that a person would be blocked > until they agreed that "they will not repeat the offense". If it's > a situation was a person was provoked and I'm sure all of us who've > been around a while have situations where people are provoked, > then they may feel like Wikipedia is just a mob gang out to "get" > them. I really don't like the idea of creating more long-term > vandals over minor offenses. > > In the case where a person is a problematic, repeat offender, has > been warned several times by uninvolved admins, than a block "until > you stop being so offensive" might be in order. > > In the case where a person is mostly productive *until that fateful > day* where they decide to add a comma to the "Palestinian rights" > article (or whatever) and get drawn into a heated battle where they > are provoked to the point of exploding, I wouldn't advocate a > project position like this. In conflict situations almost > anything can be taken as "incivil" and creating a policy like this > would only be used to beat up on opponents. In my view. > > Will Johnson > > > > > **************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. > (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000003) > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing > list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing > list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Oh no, I completely agree. I'm not advocating for a bright line rule such as we have for 3RR... but in the average situation that a warning first then a possible preventative block. But we elect administrators for judgment. I would instead advocate that the administrators with the block ability use judgment. Was the incivility warranted, provoked? These are all mitigating circumstances that may preclude blocking.
Best, Jon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmY8KoACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtWZQQCgtRce8lemt0traSeXDfclTRTo VAEAoJZq3lYz1TPJIqYTf6QHR5NCJhOH =8JtZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
