This user is a participant in WikiProject Spam.

Picture of the day

Cinnamon hummingbird

Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

• Archive
• More featured pictures

The majority of editors are here to create and maintain an encyclopedia. I'm one of them. I'm assuming we're a majority. We're not so good at dealing with those editors that are here for purposes detrimental to creating and maintaining this encyclopedia. We don't always agree on what's detrimental, and we've found the need for trade offs between what we create and how we maintain it all.

And then there's the drama of all these editors trying to work together with some harmony...

I'm trying to find better ways of dealing with Tendentious editing, Disruptive editing, and the all-to-common bullying within Wikipedia. I'm doing this in response to my own involvement into the events surrounding the Ilena and Fyslee arbitration. I feel the arbitration should have never have taken place, and that it did only because numerous editors let the problems get so very out of hand for such a very long time that there was no other choice. I'm looking for some preventative measures. First and foremost in my mind is getting editors to be more respectful of each other by being more respectful of the numerous policies and guidelines related to civility. (originally written for my talk page --Ronz 21:28, 9 April 2007(UTC))

One thing I've tried recently with a great deal of success is to stop assuming that editors will be civil. Not that I don't ask them to be civil, I just don't want to be pulled into drawn-out discussions about it. Wikipedia does very little to enforce civility, so we should all expect that some editors here will be incivil. --Ronz 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:KillerChihuahua#Soapbox | WP:COOL | WP:GRIEF | WP:FANATIC | WP:DGAF | WP:CHILLOUT | WP:TROUT | WoW | WP:HERE] | "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" | User:Durova/The_dark_side | WP:GIANTDICK | meta:Don't be a dick | There is no cabal, and certainly no Spanish Inquisition, so please just try to get along with fellow Wikipedians | Vexatious litigation | WP:SOUP | Piety | So what? | Send in the clowns | User:Dmcdevit/On_edit_warring | WP:OWB | WP:Civil_POV_pushing

"It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham."

Time to find some simple ways to show my appreciation to those editors that are civil and cooperative make an effort in some way to help Wikipedia, where they aren't obviously disrupting or vandalizing it at the same time. The easiest way is to simply tell people that their work is appreciated whenever possible...

The key to reducing disruption isn't to go back and right old wrongs or to deal a slew of warnings. Digging through old contributions doesn't "reduce disruption", it re-opens wounds. "Reducing disruption" isn't about righting great wrongs, it's about lowering the temperature.

Of course, if you really want to reduce disruption, it's important to approach the matter fairly. Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC) [1]

User:WLU/Generic_sandbox

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.
• Assume good faith of other editors.

I hope you find this reminder helpful.

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in ARTICLETALK. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. ARTICLE is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not.

Please help further the current discussions... If you feel the need to repeat past arguments, please refer to the previous ones...

• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in ARTICLETALK. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please explain your viewpoint, rather than just agreeing with another's. Please see WP:VOTE and WP:TALK for more information.

• Solicit feedback and ask questions.

Please use the talk pages only for discussing improvements to the article. If you feel the need to discuss the contributors to the article or talk page, please find a more appropriate venue to do so per WP:DR, such as the editor's talk page or WP:WQA. Again, please refer to WP:TALK for more on talk page use. Thanks!

(Needs work) Please stop contributing to ARTICLETALK as you are doing here: DIFF. Such comments turn the talk page into a battleground. If you are unable to follow talk page guidelines, unable to accept good faith of others, and unable to work cooperatively with others towards consensus, then perhaps you find some other way to contribute to Wikipedia. See WP:MENTOR.

Please resist responding to other editors improper behavior with what might be seen as incivility, especially in edit summaries where comments cannot be refactored later. I find it extremely difficult to WP:KEEPCOOL myself dealing with such editors, but the problems tend to get worse when misbehaving editors find reasons for retaliating against others.

A bit more free advice.  :) You have good points here, but perhaps you could think of a better way to phrase them?[3] Perhaps put yourself in the frame of mind of, "What if I were saying this to Elonka, instead of Fyslee? Would I use the same language?" If the answer is "No", then it might be a good idea to go back and rework your post to a more neutral tone. Can't hurt, right?  :) --Elonka 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I try to be better than the warning levels for the uw templates (eg Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Multi-level_templates). If I had my way, I'd rewrite the descriptions of the different levels to be more focused on previous behavior. For instance, I almost always give a uw-s1 warning to someone whose spammed for the first time, or hasn't yet received any spam warnings. I'll start with a uw-s2 warning only in the most blatant of cases, usually where the editor has already reverted back his own spam. I doubt if I've ever started with a uw-s3 warning to anyone, though I may have when they've already received related warnings at level 2 or higher. I try to follow the same approach with other situations. (from [2])

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To Ronz for diligence in the tireless battle against Linkspam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

en:Image:Random_Acts_of_Kindness_Barnstar.png I think you deserve this for your random act of kindness to me. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I, Durova, award Ronz the Working Man's Barnstar for contributions to WP:COIN. Keep up the good work! DurovaCharge! 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For contributions against spam and generally being able to keep the nose to the policy grindstone Shot info 10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Wikipediallexcellence Award
		To Ronz for commendable Wikipediallexcellence and general gratuitivity in times of massive apathy -- thanks!Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer