![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
★MESSED ROCKER★ 12:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful essay. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with davidwr. What the current system does is it prevents bullies from rising further up the chain. It is frequently possible on wikipedia to launch attacks on other editors and create nasty situations which are quite hurtful and drive off editors. Some editors specialize in those sorts of techniques and enhance their scope of authority through them. However via RFCs, request for admin status, arb committee elections, steward elections... do is give a chance for the losers of such conflicts to express their feelings. The negative votes and obvious lack of consensus cause bullies to fail to rise further in terms of official powers which often causes their unofficial powers to decrease. The net result is that the damage they cause the project begins to be contained, and their negative behavior curtailed. Moreover the fact that this is a common cycle causes people to be cautious about bullying. Genuine forgiveness requires repentance and making amends. Failure to ask that of person who has done wrong encourages wrong doing. Wikipedia's culture is bad enough due to a lack of redress for wrongs. There is no advantage to create an expectation that the victim of attacks have a positive obligation to try and redress the situation, the obligation should lie with the perpetrators. jbolden1517 Talk 13:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I deleted "Always forgive your enemies — nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde" from the quote box based on "The linkage to Wilde appears to be spurious. The true originator of the quotation remains unknown." https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/06/11/annoy/. If the quote is reinserted the author would need to be indicated as anonymous, perhaps with a note that the author is not Wilde. Mcljlm ( talk) 21:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
★MESSED ROCKER★ 12:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful essay. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with davidwr. What the current system does is it prevents bullies from rising further up the chain. It is frequently possible on wikipedia to launch attacks on other editors and create nasty situations which are quite hurtful and drive off editors. Some editors specialize in those sorts of techniques and enhance their scope of authority through them. However via RFCs, request for admin status, arb committee elections, steward elections... do is give a chance for the losers of such conflicts to express their feelings. The negative votes and obvious lack of consensus cause bullies to fail to rise further in terms of official powers which often causes their unofficial powers to decrease. The net result is that the damage they cause the project begins to be contained, and their negative behavior curtailed. Moreover the fact that this is a common cycle causes people to be cautious about bullying. Genuine forgiveness requires repentance and making amends. Failure to ask that of person who has done wrong encourages wrong doing. Wikipedia's culture is bad enough due to a lack of redress for wrongs. There is no advantage to create an expectation that the victim of attacks have a positive obligation to try and redress the situation, the obligation should lie with the perpetrators. jbolden1517 Talk 13:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I deleted "Always forgive your enemies — nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde" from the quote box based on "The linkage to Wilde appears to be spurious. The true originator of the quotation remains unknown." https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/06/11/annoy/. If the quote is reinserted the author would need to be indicated as anonymous, perhaps with a note that the author is not Wilde. Mcljlm ( talk) 21:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)