Anthere wrote:
Here's my suggestion:
- Robert accepts that it is wrong to insult people on
Wikipedia, apologises, and agrees not to do so in the future. 2. Those who Robert has insulted accept his apology, forgive him, and agree not to bring up the subject in the future. 3. Robert accepts that it is wrong to ask for bona fide Wikipedians to be banned, apologises, and stops doing so. 4. Those who Robert has asked to be banned accept his apology, forgive him, and agree not to bring up the subject in the future. 5. Robert accepts that it is wrong to accuse bona fide Wikipedians of being vandals, apologises, and stops doing so. 6. Those who Robert has accused of being vandals accept his apology, forgive him, and agree not to bring up the subject in the future. 7. Those who created all the junk on this topic accept that it was wrong to create so much junk, apologise for doing so, and agree not to do so in the future. 8. Those who were affected by all the junk on the subject accept the collective apology, forgive those who created it, and agree not to bring up the subject in the future. 9. All the junk on this topic, scattered over various talk pages, user talk pages, ban pages, mailing lists, etc, is all sent to the big recycle bin in the sky. 10. Time passes. 11. People start to forgive. 12. People start to forget.
This 12 step procedure will make everyone happy, I believe. However, I welcome alternative suggestions, or improvements. If you want to edit it, it'll be at [[Wikipedia:Community case RK]], replacing the big pile of junk previously located there.
Forgetting and forgiving is hard when everyone still feels that /they/ are the wronged person. So I'll suggest a simple course of action for RK and EoT, since they seem to be the main protagonists.
1. Each writes ONE message to the wiki list explaining: a. Why they are behaving as they are: b. Why they perceive the need to act as they have. c. What regrets if any they have for their behaviour.
2. Once each has explained their actions, both are BANNED from discussing each other's contributions on the wiki-list until 30th September. It is /one/ message and no more. If either tries to get in a reply, the person who tries to come back with a reply will be instantly banned from wiki for one week, and one week for every subsequent attempt to get in another reply.
3. EoT /immediately/ deletes or has deleted ALL his /pages about RK without exception. A failure to do so will be followed by their forced deletion and his banning for one month.
4. RK promises to stop making wild accusations of anti-semitism and jew-baiting against members. Any more wild exaggurated claims will be followed by his banning for one month. If between now and the 30th September he feels there is a genuine case of anti-semitism or jew-baiting, he should raise it first with a sysop or with Jimbo. If they independently concur, he can bring it to the wiki list, but only in a restrained and responsible manner. After 30th September he can make allegations directly, but only in a restrained and responsible manner.
5. Both are asked to take a week's break from wiki, to allow tempers to cool down.
6. Any return to the past behaviour will earn that user a month's ban on each occasion it happens.
JT
_________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Forgetting and forgiving is hard when everyone still feels that /they/ are the wronged person. So I'll suggest a simple course of action for RK and EoT, since they seem to be the main protagonists.
- Each writes ONE message to the wiki list explaining:
a. Why they are behaving as they are: b. Why they perceive the need to act as they have. c. What regrets if any they have for their behaviour.
I am fed up with this mailing list churning out all this yelling.
I no longer know who did what, who said what, and who is to blame.
At 03:03 AM 8/27/2003, tarquin wrote:
I am fed up with this mailing list churning out all this yelling.
I no longer know who did what, who said what, and who is to blame.
It's very simple to understand.
*I* didn't do anything wrong, it was the other person's fault. *I* didn't engage in any untowards behavior, the other person did. When *I* do something, it's justified. When the other person does the same thing, it's a bannable offense. *I* don't need to apologize for anything. The other person needs to apologize for everything.
Hope this clears things up. ;)
----- 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