[Wikipedia-l] Re: Inflammatory rhetoric (Ark)

[Daniel Mayer]

On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:24 pm, Ed wrote:
> I looked some of Ark's comments on Talk:Infanticide, and he sure seems
> upset about something. I'm going to see if I can engage him in dialogue,
> and see if I can figure out why he feels he must use language like the
> following snippets:
>
> * my lazy opponents ... you lazy bums ...
> * I don't accept the judgement of idiots. ... I am dealing with morons ...
> living in denial * I'll say what conclusions can be supported from the
> evidence (which I don't feel the least need to spell out ...)
>
> Perhaps he (she?) doesn't realize how hurtful such words can be, to other
> contributors.
>
> Ed Poor

Ed please try, but be advised that I have already spent /many/ hours trying 
to do the exact same thing (although you do seem better at this type of thing 
than me). 

I have asked nice; that didn't work

I have pleaded; that didn't work

I have suggested that his rhetoric is harming the project; that didn't work

I have stated that his rhetoric is a violation of our etiquette policy; that 
didn't work either

I have even stated that if he did not play nice and continued to sap the 
energy of other contributors that his actions will have to be reviewed by the 
mailing list and he may be blocked from editing; 

That warning obviously hasn't been headed. 

I personally give up and say we should issue one final warning and then test 
the block user function if that warning is also ignored. This person is not 
at all worth loosing any valued and long time contributor over. Wasn't the 
fact that we tolerate stuff like this (the amature and persistant POV stuff 
Ark does, not the rhetoric) the reason why Michael Tinkler left the project? 

If it means loosing somebody like Ark to keep somebody like Michael, then I 
say we should have some, but limited tolerance for the Ark's of the world.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)