Dear asshole,
You're a real jerk and everyone here knows it. You can pretend that you're /not/ an asshole, but you're not fooling anyone. The fact that you continue to troll the 'pedia and vandalize despite being repeatedly banned is just sad. Is your life /truly/ so pathetic that this is how you derive pleasure? Take my advice, jump off a bridge. The world will not miss you.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante Alighieri wrote:
Dear asshole,
You're a real jerk and everyone here knows it. You can pretend that you're /not/ an asshole, but you're not fooling anyone. The fact that you continue to troll the 'pedia and vandalize despite being repeatedly banned is just sad. Is your life /truly/ so pathetic that this is how you derive pleasure? Take my advice, jump off a bridge. The world will not miss you.
Relax, Wikilove, don't feed trolls, innocent till proven guilty, etc. etc..
Stevertigo had a really spiffy link: http://www.hugkiss.com/platinum/hugs.shtml
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com wrote:
Dear asshole,
You're a real jerk and everyone here knows it. You can pretend that you're /not/ an asshole, but you're not fooling anyone. The fact that you continue to troll the 'pedia and vandalize despite being repeatedly banned is just sad. Is your life /truly/ so pathetic that this is how you derive pleasure? Take my advice, jump off a bridge. The world will not miss you.
Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
err...who is "asshole" in that letter ???
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
That is a very nice quote indeed :-)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
While I understand and sympathize to a degree with what you're saying, but I must point out that we are under an obligation -- strategically, if for no other reason -- to extend every courtesy to the bitter end.
One of the things that's really helpful to me in making and defending these banning decisions is a _clean paper trail_. When a good person has an outburst like yours -- no matter how warranted by the circumstance -- I can rest assured that it will be quoted back to me as evidence of my inconsistency because I didn't ban or reprimand you, when I did ban or reprimand someone else.
Sure, cause and effect and "who started it" matters. But those things also get lost to history, to a maze of counter-allegations.
It's better when we are all courteous and kind, even in the face of extreme provocation.
Everyone who was named as an "example" of rude behavior by "Joe Canuck" should examine their own actions. Are we consistent, if we insist on good behavior from others, but don't insist upon it for ourselves? We almost all fail in this regard from time to time -- such is the human condition, I guess -- but we should strive for the best within us.
--Jimbo
| It's better when we are all courteous and kind, even in the face of | extreme provocation. | | Everyone who was named as an "example" of rude behavior by "Joe | Canuck" should examine their own actions. Are we consistent, if we | insist on good behavior from others, but don't insist upon it for | ourselves? We almost all fail in this regard from time to time -- | such is the human condition, I guess -- but we should strive for the | best within us.
King Jimbo I will be remembered for his wiseness and his thoughfulnessness.
-Stevertigo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
While I understand and sympathize to a degree with what you're saying, but I must point out that we are under an obligation -- strategically, if for no other reason -- to extend every courtesy to the bitter end.
One of the things that's really helpful to me in making and defending these banning decisions is a _clean paper trail_. When a good person has an outburst like yours -- no matter how warranted by the circumstance -- I can rest assured that it will be quoted back to me as evidence of my inconsistency because I didn't ban or reprimand you, when I did ban or reprimand someone else.
Sure, cause and effect and "who started it" matters. But those things also get lost to history, to a maze of counter-allegations.
It's better when we are all courteous and kind, even in the face of extreme provocation.
Everyone who was named as an "example" of rude behavior by "Joe Canuck" should examine their own actions. Are we consistent, if we insist on good behavior from others, but don't insist upon it for ourselves? We almost all fail in this regard from time to time -- such is the human condition, I guess -- but we should strive for the best within us.
I very much support an approach based on kindness and courtesy, and even when some of us get carried away with our anger we can soon gain control of our emotions and go back into some kind of "normal" behaviour, Unfortunately, a few of our regulars to hold onto their perceptions of wrongdoings like bulldogs without leaving much latitude for escaping from the grind that accompanies some of these issues.
The number of our persistent problem people is surprisingly small when you discount all the multiple personalities that some bring into the subject. Reading through the unending e-mails about this handful is perhaps one of the least pleasant tasks on the mailing list. I gave up trying to read Joe Canuck's purported defence after the first few paragraphs.
There is much to be said about having a due process policy for dealing with these people, and a page set aside for each of them where anyone can see what they did, and their sins are properly documented and dated. Details of their banning, and the conditions for their return can also be there. When a newbie asks what they did that was so wrong we can always simply refer them to that page without needing to keep going over the same material again and again.
Ec
At 01:10 PM 6/29/2003, Ec wrote:
I very much support an approach based on kindness and courtesy, and even when some of us get carried away with our anger we can soon gain control of our emotions and go back into some kind of "normal" behaviour, Unfortunately, a few of our regulars to hold onto their perceptions of wrongdoings like bulldogs without leaving much latitude for escaping from the grind that accompanies some of these issues.
The number of our persistent problem people is surprisingly small when you discount all the multiple personalities that some bring into the subject. Reading through the unending e-mails about this handful is perhaps one of the least pleasant tasks on the mailing list. I gave up trying to read Joe Canuck's purported defence after the first few paragraphs.
There is much to be said about having a due process policy for dealing with these people, and a page set aside for each of them where anyone can see what they did, and their sins are properly documented and dated. Details of their banning, and the conditions for their return can also be there. When a newbie asks what they did that was so wrong we can always simply refer them to that page without needing to keep going over the same material again and again.
Ec
I agree 100%. Far too much time is spent defending the actions of those who combat trolls through reversion. People keep popping up asking, "Why are you reverting all this users edits?" When informed that they are banned, the next question is inevitably, "But why revert ALL their edits?". It becomes pointless to repeat the same answers time and time again. We need, as Ec suggested, a single page per vandal where all the evidence and pertinent information is located that we can use as an illustrative aid when questioned on our actions regarding the vandal.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321