A few responses and replies;
Firstly I'd like to welcome clearly the word of the
hour.....introduced by dg in this thread, but used with some frequency
throughout the wiki on this issue.......... 'querulous' - it's a very
nice word, and I have hope that we may inspire its resurgence in
popular verbiage. It's a little bit like 'whining' but makes you sound
smarter for using it.
per dg on this point;
Indeed. It's like JB196 complaining that a few of
the accounts blocked
as sockpuppets of his weren't in fact his. I wonder what an editor ethics
committee would say to such a charge.
I note it took exactly three posts before I was compared to a banned
user - perhaps that's insightful, or perhaps it's part of the problem.
Per sam;
What is this ethical committee supposed to do?
This is a valid point, and I don't have the answer beyond saying that
any such body should aim to maintain ethical behaviour on the part of
trusted community members - is this not a useful aim?
Per Fredl
Ethics is good.
I hope you may consider the possibility therefore of a remit to uphold them.
Running one quiet responsible account and another
aggressive
confrontive, and uncivil, account is just not viable. That's something
you might do on a MUD.
I agree that that is unacceptable, and wholly disagree that that is
the case. Please please please at least consider the possibility that
I am a rational, calm person who has been involved with wikipedia for
a long while, though not overly intensely, and is passionate enough
about issues that I consider important to try and ensure that I have
(at least) some contribution that can be heard. This is not a MUD, and
I am not aggressive, confrontive or uncivil.
Per Relato;
hear hear.
best,
PM