User talk:TexasAndroid/JtR Battleground

Added "tangential references to restrictions
I added tangential refernces to the restrictions as I've noticed quite a few arguments start with "Other editors here say..." so let's just nip that in the bud right now. I feel if we are going to do this it really must be complete, no references to anything but "words". padillaH (review me)(help me) 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be Universal
The agreement should include all editors who comment on the JTR Talk page not a selection of supposedly troublesome ones. Most of the editors only get into trouble on that one page: experienced admins, newbies, editors with otherwise unblemished records seem to get dragged into an unending slagging match there which is not replicated on any other article they edit or in any other interaction on the wikipedia. The wise leave early and edit other articles rather than be tarnished by participation. We do not need new rules - all we need is for the existing wikipedia guidelines on civility, assuming good faith and personal attacks to be monitored by a neutral admin who can restrain himself or herself from getting down and dirty in the all-in wrestling match. I say this because one tactic seems to be to 'shoot the ref', i.e. insult the overseers to goad them into getting personal and then claim to other admins that the monitor is biased or is part of some wicked conspiracy to do down the editor in question. I think that the guidelines on civility, good faith and personal attacks should be taken seriously. One infraction may be minor but if they are continually broken in edit after edit it has a cumulative effect and in the end it acts like black propaganda, as used by the tabloid press and politicians. Basically it is a gaming technique. What I am saying is that the existing wikipedia guidelines should be taken seriously, obeyed and infractions punished and that this should apply to all editors. If editors are well behaved then they should have no problems and if they are badly behaved then they deserve all they get. Well behaved editors have nothing to fear from the guidelines being taken seriously and enforced - therefore it should apply to everybody. Nobody should have a bad behaviour exemption. Why not set a notice on the Talk page and say that after a certain time and date the wikipedia guidelines should be obeyed and taken seriously and that such-and-such an admin will monitor behaviour from then on. Colin4C (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea looks mostly dead at this point. DG is rejecting the enforcement block idea, and you are rejecting some of the key parts of the idea as well.  That brings up a "what next?" situation.  I myself am very close to just unwatching the JtR page and letting all of you stew in the pot you have made.  I'm nominally mostly there to watch for vandalism, not to drop into the wikidrama of the page.  I'm myself mostly constrained from acting on the page in all but the most one-sided anti-DG situations, like the situation with BH in the last couple of days.  KB is totally constrained from acting.  And getting another, previously uninvolved, admin willing to come in and set up shop.... that'll be quite a challenge.   Sigh. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am rejecting the personalisation of issues in favor of universal norms. Your statements "letting all of you stew in the pot you have made" and "one-sided anti-DG situations" indicate that you think it is just to do with personalities rather than enforcing universal norms of civility on everybody. As I have said, admins, editors with previous good records, newbies all get dragged down once they start editing that page. Like a bar room brawl in a western - everyone either gets involved just by being there or gets the hell out. All I have called for is the wikipedia guidelines to be respected, not whimsically overturned because somebody is supposedly as bad as someone else or someone supposedly started it way back when. Why don't we just start with a clean sheet one day soon and forbid ALL editors to hark back to what other editors have done in the past, or air notions that someone is being picked on by a wicked conspiracy or whatever. 'Assume good faith' should mean what it says. 'Civility' should mean what it says. 'No personal attacks' should mean what it says. If the rules are not consistently enforced you have anarchy. (I base this on my experience of being a schoolteacher dealing with the playground politics of 'he started it Sir' on a daily basis). Colin4C (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking this myself. When the proposal was made I thought, "Isn't that what is supposed to happen"? No editor is supposed to be allowed to speak meanly regarding another editor, regardless of who either of them are. This is usually approached with a degree of leniency but JtR has gotten so out of hand it's counter-productive to allow such leniency. The "what next" question is a valid one, what do we do now? What is the next step in dispute resolution? I think, rather than imposing a block on others I think we need to encourage editors to accept a Zero-tolerance policy of their own. Explain in the AN/I that the situation has gotten out of hand and issues from that page need to be dealt with in the most severe manner allowed. Encourage any editor that feels they have been slighted to take it to AN/I. I know we could end up swaming AN/I but that's the point, to get others to see what this page has come to. If we get enough editors blocked or even banned we might make people take notice and respect the page. padillaH (review me)(help me) 21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We could put a prominent notice on the JTR talk page announcing in advance that from a certain time and date (Z(ero)T(olerence) Day) that infractions of the wikipedia guidelines on civility, assuming good faith and personal abuse will not be tolerated from anybody. Also make it clear that such excuses as 'there is a conspiracy against me', 'he started it' and 'he's as bad as me' are not a dispensation to flout the guidelines. Nobody has a special dispensation to flout the guidelines no matter how 'justified' their grievence is. If they disagree with the notice thay should stop editing the page immediately and go somewhere else. We could even vote on it with the majority view being the one that will be enforced (thus obviating a 'I didn't vote for this and therefore I don't have to accept it' excuse). An experienced uninvolved admin could monitor it and should judge impartially and not get involved or allow himself to be dragged into personal conflicts. Accusing the monitor of partisanship in some grand conspiracy against an aggrieved editor should not be allowed either. Hopefully there is some admin out there who has no previous 'history' with the contending parties. On second thoughts maybe a group of three admins would be an assurance against any complaints of partisanship. Colin4C (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)