On 11/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:57:28 +0530, "Relata
Refero"
<refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just to repeat: the original edits by that IP were
not trolling, but
relevant contributions to the discussion at WT:SOCK, but put with a
directness - not drama - that most of us would have avoided.
You think. I think it was repeating a baseless allegation made by a
banned user with a grudge. But then, I have been harassed by these
people for so long that I am inclined to think that anything which
has its origins in one of their memes is done with deliberate
intent.
Okay!! Well, we're making progress. That's basically all I've been
saying. There's been a culture developed where good-faithed editors
who "sound somehow similar" to the banned people generally face an
assumption of bad-faith and are often inappropriately treated
incivilly because of it.
I think this is a natural human response to feeling "under attack"--
people get this "under siege" mentality, get a little hostile, a
little hypervigilent. Wanting to protect your team. To create a
safe place. To stamp out attacks. To defeat the enemy, etc. Falling
victiming to that trend doesn't make you a bad person or a bad-faith
editor-- just a loyal wikipedian.
It's great that you recognize a tendency to equate "similarity to
banned users" with deliberate bad faith. It's bad that you don't
automatically see this as a problem that needs fixing. But one step
at a time.
Alec