CZ Talk:Managing Editor/2011/004 - Constabulary action

A reasonable suggestion

I agree with this. It is very similar to a suggestion I posted in a recent forum thread: A plea to stop legislating ourselves to death

---

I have a suggestion, controversial, no doubt, but I hope that it still will be considered seriously, anyway.

Dan has given a very good analysis of the various types of disturbing behaviour. However, we already have more than enough discussions whether some behaviour is professional (or not) or bannable, Introducing new distinctions would not simplify matters. On the contrary, it would cause new complications and inevitably lead to discussions (and formal appeals) whether a certain comment constitutes brawling or taunting. (... and thus cause more bureaucracy.)

What about a more relaxed approach to good or bad behaviour? Let us not forget that, ultimately, the request of civility and professionality is not an end in itself!

Its purpose is to create a pleasant environment and to make life and collaboration easier, but ...

... its effect is that we currently spend more time and effort with discussing behaviour than with discussing the content of our articles.

Let us try to be more easy-going and handle it like in sports: A breach of the rules deserves a penalty, sure, but then the affair is forgotten:

The Constables act as umpires. They do not remove offending text but mark it as "foul" and sanction it by imposing a penalty -- a warning, a "time penalty" (a block of, say, one day), or an exclusion (for, say, a week). At the very least this interrupts the dispute, but one may hope that the forced break will help to cool down the tempers involved,

As in sports games umpire decisions cannot be appealed, but every observer can judge himself if he considers them as justified. (We should not mind this but be less sensitive: After all, we are all grown-ups and being called names in a comment does not really hurt -- we can live with it.)

Banning from the project should be used only very rarely, for really damaging actions.

---

I'm not sure that warnings on user's talk pages are the best method. I think that a page (maintained by the Constabulary) that logs such warnings and penalties is better suited as permanent record.

--Peter Schmitt 06:21, 1 May 2011 (CDT)

I agree with this. Ro Thorpe 07:34, 1 May 2011 (CDT)

There is a point where text, especially essentially repeated and only sometimes paraphrased, interferes with the signal-to-noise ratio. Even when it's well-intentioned, I'm leaning toward putting part of my longer notes on a user page and linking to it.

I don't know if I'd precisely call it offending, but there is a time when everyone involved has made their point -- and we go into rounds and rounds of repeating the same arguments.

Personally, I would say that there are Citizens hat simply do not care if warnings appear on their talk pages. That would, incidentally, matter to me. Sometimes I might respond to what I think is unfair, privately -- and other times I will listen and learn. Howard C. Berkowitz 08:10, 1 May 2011 (CDT)

Good thinking, Peter, nicely expressed with a sports analogy. Fines to help with hosting expenses? Recognitions, awards? Anthony.Sebastian 19:37, 15 May 2011 (CDT)