331
edits
User talk:Koavf: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Conflict: new section
(→Conflict: new section) |
|||
| Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
: It was due [[WikiIndex talk:Leader]] [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | : It was due [[WikiIndex talk:Leader]] [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
== Conflict == | |||
I regret that it has been necessary for me to comment on you past and the situation with Leucosticte. If you back up and let go of so much control, you will come to find that Leucosticte is generally a cooperative user, when given clear guidance. He will stay within what the community sets as policy. If he doesn't like it, he goes away. Usually! | |||
However, there is a far more difficult user active, Manorainjan. I'm seeing that his incivility may have led Hoof Hearted to abandon WikiIndex. Difficult users can lead administrators into errors, or what will look like errors, and so when MarkDilley did not support Hoof Hearted, it may have blown his fuses. I hope that WikiIndex can get Hoof Hearted back. | |||
Meanwhile, handling problem users tests the capacity of a wiki and a wiki community to handle conflict. Manorainjan is not always wrong, but is tendentious and tenacious, and easily falls into incivility. Such users can be handled with firm clarity. Because of their condition, they may eventually pick some fight with all the active administrators, leading to a problem with recusal policies (whether those policies are explicit or only implied, they are what users expect.) Under those conditions, any administrator may take emergency action, and what I'm here today for is to advise on that, if you care to receive advice. First of all, before taking an emergency action, make sure it is actually an emergency! That is, there will be harm from delay. Second, make your action minimal, just enough to postpone harm. Third, immediately consult the community, do not wait for someone else to complain. Disclose the conflict of interest that might otherwise prohibit the action. | |||
Manorainjan should be warned about incivility. When incivility is allowed to continue, wikis die. I have just pinged him about an abusive sequence, and I've seen a lot more in looking around today. Manorainjan can be a useful contributor, but civility is fundamental to the function of any sound wiki community, so ... if he is warned and disregards the warnings, then he should be blocked. For a user like this, his talk page should remain open, let him rant on that page, and the blocking admin shouldn't take further action. He should not be "banned." Carrot and stick. I have long experience in dealing with problem users. Some, it may be hopeless, but others can be successfully encouraged to cooperate and collaborate. | |||
I do have some question about block length. Wikipedia practice is to block progressively, for short periods, extending into long periods. However, my first real block on Wikipedia, by Iridescent, was indef. However, Iridescent was explicit, "indef until a shift," not "indef as in forever." On a small wiki, if a user is indeffed, the user page should be carefully monitored for unblock request and the user should be given full opportunity to show an understanding of the block reason, and to undertake to not continue the cause of the block. It is also possible to unblock a user for the purpose of participating in a community discussion of the block. If unblocked for that reason, the unblocking admin may always, without raising any recusal issue, undo their own action, the unblock. | |||
Care with this can establish for the community that administrators have the privilege in order to serve the community, not merely their own opinion. It can help to build community. Thanks. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 23:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC) | |||