-13
$\begingroup$

I have had a lot of patience during those days. But there is a moment, that that patience ends.

I have seen many downvotes on my questions to implement a more user friendly approach to new users. Now, new users are often still not helped in user friendly ways and are being attacked for non-proper formating etc. Here, I have again a case in which user got attacked by a user with more reputation than this.

I want that this behaviour stops today, and that we kick out the users that attack new players too much. If you can't explain the rules in a normal way, you should not be in this community. We are here to help people, not to blame people.

Also I am a bit sick of arbitrary moderation. I try to be as friendly as I can to a user crash, but he downvoted a good question I gave to a new user, without first reading what I wrote (this post is already removed), he rejected my perfect edit, and what ever I say he starts a comment war.

I really believe that we can do better! As all of us. And that people who can not have respect for new players, should get punished by moderators.

Thank you.

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by Andrés E. Caicedo, Daniel W. Farlow, ASB, Najib Idrissi, Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 21 '15 at 10:17

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not appear to be about Mathematics Stack Exchange or the software that powers the Stack Exchange network within the scope defined in the help center." – Andrés E. Caicedo, Daniel W. Farlow, ASB, Najib Idrissi, Jyrki Lahtonen
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What edit did crash reject? I see this but I am guessing he clicked accept and improve edit. That isn't an edit rejection. $\endgroup$ – dustin Mar 20 '15 at 22:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is also this one as well but I think the same situation occurred here as well. Also, your reputation reflects $+4$ for the approvals. $\endgroup$ – dustin Mar 20 '15 at 22:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @dustin this one, it was then improved by another reviewer. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Mar 20 '15 at 22:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer okay so one rejection and 2 accept improves doesn't seem too terrible. $\endgroup$ – dustin Mar 20 '15 at 22:23
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Since I am being directly implicated here I thought I would weigh in--as @dustin has pointed out, for that implicit differentiation post, I improved your edit, resulting in +4 rep for you. I stand by my rejection Fischer linked to because it does not improve the post all that much in my opinion. When I saw that a significant portion of that post was a picture and that Pedro did not edit the picture into reasonably typeset mathematics, I rejected the suggested edit. I think that is perfectly reasonable. If not, please explain why (seeking response from a mod or another experienced user). $\endgroup$ – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 20 '15 at 22:53
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ I feel like I should defend myself (just a little more): I have only been on MSE for 4 months (as opposed to OP's 31), yet I have already earned almost all of the moderation badges (including copy editor and archaeologist). I don't think it's fair to characterize me as seeking confrontation. However, I have come across many comments by Pedro that are completely useless or actively harmful. My latest flags for his comments as of today. Given how active I am with helpful editing and reviewing, I'd like to think I'm helping MSE more than harming it. $\endgroup$ – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 20 '15 at 23:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @crash the edit of the post is a potential reject, but due to the title edit I might approve it. It is a close call. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 20 '15 at 23:09
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @quid I agree it is a close call; it certainly doesn't warrant a meta lampoon though. $\endgroup$ – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 20 '15 at 23:11
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @crash As far as that edit suggestion is concerned, a little closer investigation revealed an unfortunate sequence of events. Pedro started the edit from the original post and edited the title - which was good. Unfortunately, shortly before Pedro submitted his suggestion, Edward Jiang edited the question and improved the body, which then made it look as though Pedro introduced bad things in the body alongside the title improvement. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Mar 20 '15 at 23:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer That is exactly what happened. $\endgroup$ – Pedro Mar 20 '15 at 23:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So, had Pedro started from Edward's version, or had Pedro's suggestion been submitted before Edward's edit, it should have been a clear approve (with an improving further edit in the latter case). As things were presented to you, rejecting was one of two reasonable choices. Improving the edit like Victor Liu did was the other. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Mar 20 '15 at 23:17
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer I realize that; the "unfortunate sequence of events" you described is the only reason Pedro got +4--because I am the one who had to clean up the mess on the bad edit(s). Regardless, I don't think it is at all reasonable to suggest I had bad intent. $\endgroup$ – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 20 '15 at 23:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @crash I just don't know what I sometimes need to think of you. I remember the first time we met and you said: "If you answer this question, I guarantee you, I downvote your answer". I did, and you downvoted my answer so quickly that I can't believe that you actually read my answer. My answer was accepted by the person who asked the question because it really helped him out. $\endgroup$ – Pedro Mar 20 '15 at 23:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @crash In the case I linked (with the unfortunate sequence of events), the clean-up was done by Victor Liu (and today, dustin cropped the image for further improvement), you made the clean-up in the two cases linked by dustin (thanks, by the way). I agree that nothing in either of these suggests bad intent on your side. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Mar 20 '15 at 23:28
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ And, congratulations, the history of your meta posts has triggered a system flag. May be you should actually read what has been said in the earlier meta posts on this topic? Start a new thread (or post an answer to the older ones), when you are convinced that you have something to add to the discussion. Otherwise these posts sound like "rants". $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 21 '15 at 10:21
16
$\begingroup$

I have had a lot of patience these days. But there is a moment, that that patience ends.

I have seen many downvotes on my questions to implement unnecessarily confrontational meta questions about implementing a more user friendly approach to new users. Now, new users are often still not helped in user friendly ways and are being attacked for non-proper formatting etcetera.

I want that this behaviour stops today, and that we kick out the users that attack new players seek confrontation too much. If you can't explain the rules request changes in a normal way, you should not be in this community. We are here to help people, not to blame people.

I really believe that we can do better! All of us. And that people who cannot have respect for new players meta etiquette, should get punished by moderators.

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I get that you're riffing on the original post; but it's not very clear what's different. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 20 '15 at 21:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf There you go. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Mar 20 '15 at 21:51
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, that's much more than I noticed previously. Thanks, I guess. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 20 '15 at 21:54
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @Pedro I was hoping to trigger a look in the mirror by copying your post as close as possible. I'm sad to see that it didn't work out as I hoped :(. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Mar 21 '15 at 8:07
12
$\begingroup$

I do agree that there is, occasionally at least, unnecessarily hostile behaviour towards new users. If one feels too tired or angry or whatever to be polite and helpful, it is better to skip the question altogether. I do not know what exactly took place between you and the other user, so let me just make some general remarks.

If you cannot get along with some other user, it is often best to try to avoid them. On a site this large that is often – but not always – possible. Unfortunate things do happen, and if the problem with the same user does persist, I would advise to stop communicating with them and to carry on. It takes at least two to fight a comment war.

If you feel that some user is repeatedly behaving badly towards you, flag a comment or a post by this user and explain to the moderators what is wrong. Relations between individual users should not be discussed at meta, and publicly asking for punishment for someone else might make them even more hostile. Discussion of the general phenomenon is, of course, welcome at meta.

And whenever you see inappropriate behaviour towards anyone, flag the comment or the post.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .