In a message dated 2/15/2009 7:36:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, scream@datascreamer.com writes:
-----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:
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=emlcntu...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/15/2009 7:36:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, scream@datascreamer.com writes:
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:
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=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
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
Will Johnson, he wasn't being incivil, he was being frank....incivility is * never* warranted