| Revision as of 20:23, 4 August 2013 editStudent7 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers72,738 edits →RE: Calling "attention to the problem publicly"← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:52, 5 August 2013 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →RE: Calling "attention to the problem publicly": thanks for commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| :Yes. | :Yes. | ||
| :I almost never mention editors by name, if possible. I just say that I rm "xxx" which has been replaced by "another" editor. I would like to explain my reasons here... New editors may not even respond. I would then call their attention to the discussion page on '''their''' page. No answer? Rm again. Then when replaced, announce on editor's page that s/he may discuss this on article's page, but if it happens again without first discussing, you will be (forced) to treat it as vandalism. Then proceed to do so, if editor fails to defend his/her edits. Escalating up through 3= reverts. Then notify an admin to block them. The main thing here is patience. It may take a week or two. The admin will note your caution with more pleasure than s/he will regard your speed! Keep the remarks npov. Don't respond to jibes, though it's okay to request ] '''please'''. Admins will look at your language if editing is not obvious. ] (]) 20:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC) | :I almost never mention editors by name, if possible. I just say that I rm "xxx" which has been replaced by "another" editor. I would like to explain my reasons here... New editors may not even respond. I would then call their attention to the discussion page on '''their''' page. No answer? Rm again. Then when replaced, announce on editor's page that s/he may discuss this on article's page, but if it happens again without first discussing, you will be (forced) to treat it as vandalism. Then proceed to do so, if editor fails to defend his/her edits. Escalating up through 3= reverts. Then notify an admin to block them. The main thing here is patience. It may take a week or two. The admin will note your caution with more pleasure than s/he will regard your speed! Keep the remarks npov. Don't respond to jibes, though it's okay to request ] '''please'''. Admins will look at your language if editing is not obvious. ] (]) 20:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::I hve done it that way before and started that way with new couple editors, but then the editors started boasting about their POVs/academic credentials/blah blah and engaging in a lot of problematic behavior which had to be brought to noticeboards and then it became more relevant. I guess like anything else it's a judgement call - and can you defend that judgement if brought to task! '''] ''' 01:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:52, 5 August 2013
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
RE: Calling "attention to the problem publicly"
Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors reads Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page...(etc)
This it means to me the first step is: discuss at the talk page per WP:Dispute, even start a new section on biased editing if necessary, quote the policy and list evidence of bias, like explicit biased statements by the editor. However, some editors will complain of personal attacks if you do it just once, not to mention if you need to do it again in that or another article. So any guidance on whether having to do it repeatedly because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a problem. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes.
- I almost never mention editors by name, if possible. I just say that I rm "xxx" which has been replaced by "another" editor. I would like to explain my reasons here... New editors may not even respond. I would then call their attention to the discussion page on their page. No answer? Rm again. Then when replaced, announce on editor's page that s/he may discuss this on article's page, but if it happens again without first discussing, you will be (forced) to treat it as vandalism. Then proceed to do so, if editor fails to defend his/her edits. Escalating up through 3= reverts. Then notify an admin to block them. The main thing here is patience. It may take a week or two. The admin will note your caution with more pleasure than s/he will regard your speed! Keep the remarks npov. Don't respond to jibes, though it's okay to request WP:AGF please. Admins will look at your language if editing is not obvious. Student7 (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I hve done it that way before and started that way with new couple editors, but then the editors started boasting about their POVs/academic credentials/blah blah and engaging in a lot of problematic behavior which had to be brought to noticeboards and then it became more relevant. I guess like anything else it's a judgement call - and can you defend that judgement if brought to task! User:Carolmooredc 01:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)