4 ms·

If agreeing what ever being said, is there an alternative way things can be improved ?

• chris_wot 10y ago
  Sure, I think firstly editors can treat each other with much more kindness and respect. Secondly, administrators should be refreshing their understanding of policy. Any editor who tries to be a wikilawyer and force their viewpoint even when it is contrary to the very policy they say another editor is violating should be warned and told to carefully read the policy. Editors who deliberately hide discussions via tricks like adding collapse tags should be warned then sanctioned. That's deliberately being disruptive and preventing consensus based contributions. BLP accusations should be more carefully analysed - a lot of what I was being accused off had nothing to do with a violation of BLP and huge swathes of non-controversial material was removed under the BLP policy, even though Much of it was no a violation at all. Admins should not accuse editors of not discussing things on talk pages when in fact that's what they have done. And lastly, editors who are page patrollers only should not be given more weight than new editors who make substantial contributions to Wikipedia. Those new editors should be encouraged and a polite message should be given detailing what the issues are when material is contributed. If they ask questions in the talk page and the page patroller refuses to discuss things further, then the page patroller should entirely disengage from the article - especially those who have not shown any skills in research or even the slightest attempt at getting any article to good article start us, let alone an attempt at making the article a featured article!
• dingaling 10y ago
  One could establish a system-enforced rule that users could only delete as many bytes as they had contributed.