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, scream@datascreamer.com writes:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:32:55 +0000, Patton 123 pattonabc@gmail.com wrote:
Well after the recent lengthy discussion and civility etc on this list, and this
I've been thinking about a solution for incivility. Wouldn't a 3RR-like system be good? Users get a warning for a personal attack, and if they do it again a short block. There's obviously the problem that different people regard different things as personal attacks, but it's food for
thought....
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntu...)
on 2/15/09 2:59 PM, WJhonson@aol.com at WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Many cases of "incivility" are in-my-mind completely justified.
Will, by this statement, and your attitudes displayed in other of your posts on this subject clearly shows that you are a big part of the problem here. What really are your objections to this whole issue?
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/15/09 2:59 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Many cases of "incivility" are in-my-mind completely justified.
Will, by this statement, and your attitudes displayed in other of your posts on this subject clearly shows that you are a big part of the problem here. What really are your objections to this whole issue?
This really highlights a quite different aspect of the problem: how we use words. An absence of linguistic rigour is not at all rare in this kind of discussion. I think that Will is using the word in a very broad sense while you are reading it more narrowly and precisely. Perhaps "understandable" or even "pardonable" may have been a better choice.
Edit wars have often broken out in article space over the subtleties of imperfect synonyms. In time one hopes to find a word that will satisfy both parties. A word used in a mailing thread is not so easily retractable when it is unintentionally misused or ambiguous. Some Brit earlier in this thread listed a number of. words that he considered uncivil when they were used to characterise a person. One of these words was "wanker". From the perspective of the left side of the pond this is just one more of these quaintly humorous British words.
Third party interventions in cases of perceived incivility should only take place where the offence is clear. Two thick skinned editors can often exchange epithets one day, and be at their co-operative best the next day on a different issue.
In cases of schoolyard bullying it is important to consider the interests of the bullied as well as the bully. Kind words can go a long way with a traumatised newbie.
Ec
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/15/09 2:59 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Many cases of "incivility" are in-my-mind completely justified.
Will, by this statement, and your attitudes displayed in other of your posts on this subject clearly shows that you are a big part of the problem here. What really are your objections to this whole issue?
on 2/16/09 4:36 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This really highlights a quite different aspect of the problem: how we use words. An absence of linguistic rigour is not at all rare in this kind of discussion. I think that Will is using the word in a very broad sense while you are reading it more narrowly and precisely. Perhaps "understandable" or even "pardonable" may have been a better choice.
Edit wars have often broken out in article space over the subtleties of imperfect synonyms. In time one hopes to find a word that will satisfy both parties. A word used in a mailing thread is not so easily retractable when it is unintentionally misused or ambiguous. Some Brit earlier in this thread listed a number of. words that he considered uncivil when they were used to characterise a person. One of these words was "wanker". From the perspective of the left side of the pond this is just one more of these quaintly humorous British words.
Third party interventions in cases of perceived incivility should only take place where the offence is clear. Two thick skinned editors can often exchange epithets one day, and be at their co-operative best the next day on a different issue.
In cases of schoolyard bullying it is important to consider the interests of the bullied as well as the bully. Kind words can go a long way with a traumatised newbie.
Thank you for this, Ray. And thank you, most especially, for the last sentence. The road toward constructive collaboration is going to be a rocky one. But I do believe the majority of the community is firmly behind it. That is why I'm still here.
Marc
Agreeing in large part with George's insightful commentary. Adding a few points outside the range of his comments.
Regarding block duration, extremely short blocks tend to backfire. Human nature is that people usually become less grumpy after a good meal and a night's rest. Nearly everyone will eat and sleep within 24 hours, so my threshold for civility blocks was 'Did this go far enough that the person should sleep on it?' If it wasn't that serious then the thing to do is engage the editor politely or shrug it off. It's a misnomer to call really short blocks 'cool-down blocks': an editor who gets blocked at 9pm after missing dinner may return in the wee hours hungrier, more fatigued and more upset than before.
A lot of editors won't promise to cease the behavior either. We often can't get that type of promise even for situations where it's really needed such as threats and privacy policy violations. Often enough the editor is actually willing to not do it again, but dislikes the one-down position they perceive in that. It comes too close to a coerced apology for some people's tastes. So while it may be appropriate to seek this promise before unblocking for bannable behavior, garden variety incivility doesn't merit it--unless perhaps the incivility itself is so habitual and extreme that it's actually bannable.
Also it's very important for administrators to familiarize themselves with the surrounding context. Incivility is easy to determine, but the cause of an editor's frustration may be less visible. Disruptive editors who become wise to that may try to exploit that. The classic example was the Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson arbitration case. Chris had serious civility problems and seemed on his way to a siteban. I blocked him for incivility while the case was ongoing, and a few minutes after his block an impersonation account appeared with a username that resembled the other party and trolled until it got blocked. That's Chris socking, right? Actually no. Checkuser revealed that Jmfangio was actually the reincarnation of a community banned editor, and a *second* sneaky IP editor had created the impersonation sock. The timing of that sock's creation suggested very strongly that the IP editor was trying to frame Chris and get him banned. What really happened was that Chris was trollable, and two trolls had been baiting him. The trolls both got banned properly and Chris has about 50,000 edits now.
Admins, please remember that there may be more below the surface when you see incivility.
-Durova
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/15/09 2:59 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Many cases of "incivility" are in-my-mind completely justified.
Will, by this statement, and your attitudes displayed in other of your
posts
on this subject clearly shows that you are a big part of the problem
here.
What really are your objections to this whole issue?
on 2/16/09 4:36 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This really highlights a quite different aspect of the problem: how we use words. An absence of linguistic rigour is not at all rare in this kind of discussion. I think that Will is using the word in a very broad sense while you are reading it more narrowly and precisely. Perhaps "understandable" or even "pardonable" may have been a better choice.
Edit wars have often broken out in article space over the subtleties of imperfect synonyms. In time one hopes to find a word that will satisfy both parties. A word used in a mailing thread is not so easily retractable when it is unintentionally misused or ambiguous. Some Brit earlier in this thread listed a number of. words that he considered uncivil when they were used to characterise a person. One of these words was "wanker". From the perspective of the left side of the pond this is just one more of these quaintly humorous British words.
Third party interventions in cases of perceived incivility should only take place where the offence is clear. Two thick skinned editors can often exchange epithets one day, and be at their co-operative best the next day on a different issue.
In cases of schoolyard bullying it is important to consider the interests of the bullied as well as the bully. Kind words can go a long way with a traumatised newbie.
Thank you for this, Ray. And thank you, most especially, for the last sentence. The road toward constructive collaboration is going to be a rocky one. But I do believe the majority of the community is firmly behind it. That is why I'm still here.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Durova wrote:
Regarding block duration, extremely short blocks tend to backfire. Human nature is that people usually become less grumpy after a good meal and a night's rest. Nearly everyone will eat and sleep within 24 hours, so my threshold for civility blocks was 'Did this go far enough that the person should sleep on it?' If it wasn't that serious then the thing to do is engage the editor politely or shrug it off. It's a misnomer to call really short blocks 'cool-down blocks': an editor who gets blocked at 9pm after missing dinner may return in the wee hours hungrier, more fatigued and more upset than before.
In some cases by the time of the block, the offender may already be sleeping it off. One needs to pay attention to time zones, or how much time has elapsed since the incivility. A Sunday night block of a person who only shows up on weekends may have no effect at all.
A lot of editors won't promise to cease the behavior either. We often can't get that type of promise even for situations where it's really needed such as threats and privacy policy violations. Often enough the editor is actually willing to not do it again, but dislikes the one-down position they perceive in that. It comes too close to a coerced apology for some people's tastes. So while it may be appropriate to seek this promise before unblocking for bannable behavior, garden variety incivility doesn't merit it--unless perhaps the incivility itself is so habitual and extreme that it's actually bannable.
I strongly agree. In some cultures saving face is an important element of common courtesy.
Ec
Short blocks tend to be punitive, and are thus, in my opinion, in violation of the blocking policy. This is because (a) they cannot be intended for any purpose other than cooling down somebody (which never works) or (b) creating a permanent mark on a user. Neither of these purposes are effective or fair. Personally, I advocate for (a) no blocks, (b) long-term blocks, or (c) permanent blocks, depending on the seriousness of the situation.
—Thomas Larsen
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com wrote:
Short blocks tend to be punitive, and are thus, in my opinion, in violation of the blocking policy. This is because (a) they cannot be intended for any purpose other than cooling down somebody (which never works) or (b) creating a permanent mark on a user. Neither of these purposes are effective or fair. Personally, I advocate for (a) no blocks, (b) long-term blocks, or (c) permanent blocks, depending on the seriousness of the situation.
Sometimes it's not so much marking a user, but that some admins feel the need to have something there on a permanent record, not just in a talk page history or archive. If justified, that can sometimes be reasonable, but if not justified it can, as you say, be a mark of shame. The way people react to their first block is interesting. Either they accept it quietly, or they get incensed. Some people see it as no big deal, even if incorrect, as long as the incorrectness is acknowledged. Others get clase about being blocked, not realising that as the block build up, they acquire a reputation (though you can get a reputation without a lock log record).
Carcharoth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
WJhonson@aol.com 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, scream@datascreamer.com writes:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:32:55 +0000, Patton 123 pattonabc@gmail.com
wrote:
Well after the recent lengthy discussion and civility etc on this list, and this
I've been thinking about a solution for incivility. Wouldn't a 3RR-like system be good? Users get a warning for a personal attack, and if they do it again a short block. There's obviously the problem that different people regard different things as personal attacks, but it's food for
thought....
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntu...) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Please don't misunderstand... I'm not advocating indefinite blocks, I should have stated as much.
Best, Jon