How LT could/should deal with disruptive members

In a topic that started about one particular member and the problems they have caused, Tim asked for suggestions about dealing with disruptive members:

Okay, does anyone have a suggestion for me?

For example:

* Some sort of "I declare a disagreement" that causes an issue to be frozen until settled by more than one person?
* Clarify certain principles--what's allowed and what's off-limits.

I'm open to ideas here.

One member suggested that members need permission to be editors. This is quite clearly not a solution here. We're not dealing with edits from randos, we're dealing with members objecting to one of the most constant and prolific editors.

LibraryThing can of course prevent people from editing, but having a special editors group doesn't solve this problem.

Similarly, this isn't about making things clearer. The answer will not be "Make rules and expectations more clear, so that users are less likely to make offensive edits." The member everyone is angry about has read everything. They aren't acting from ignorance.

>2 timspalding: Much as I dislike some of the things happening, I agree I don't think we should go that way. (Mere user here, but you know that).

>1 karenb:

FWIW, the issue is larger than disruptive members. It's about how to resolve disagreements over global-editing features.

>2 timspalding: we're dealing with members objecting to one of the most constant and prolific editors.

I very much disagree with this statement. We're dealing with one user who constantly monitors all edits performed on this site, and sometimes the edit history of specific users, and undoes/alters anything that they don't agree with, and blocks those users to prevent any discussion about it. What members are objecting to is their work being undone/altered based on one domineering member's opinion about what is right and what is wrong.

It seems there are two separate issues here. 1) How do we resolve disagreements about editing? 2) How do we address disruptive editing? It's as much about intentions as it is about the edits themselves.

I have no real input on the latter, except that if any individual person is disruptive enough for long enough (and I'm not going to make any statements as to where "enough" is), then maybe that person doesn't need editing privileges anymore.

For the former, I suspect clearness could be part of the issue, at least in some instances. I've seen some disputes that seem to boil down to personal preference regarding what should be in a given field. Or take aliasing for example. I've seen people get absolutely up in arms about it. And yet I'm a 14-year member with thousands of edits to my name, and I have no idea how aliasing is supposed to work or what the rules are surrounding it. If I'm not sure how it works, even after years of experience, can we expect newer folks to get it right? And do we have any right to be mad at them when they get it wrong? (That's a weird royal we, I'm not calling out anyone in particular.)

Which actually brings to mind another issue. Some of us have been here forever. We know the best practices intuitively. We helped shape the best practices through conversations with each other and with staff. But we can't really expect newer folks to go dig up some random dormant thread from 2011 where we hashed out what should and should not go in a given field. (EDIT: Even with a good instructions page, people may not read it. But we won't know until we try.)

Obviously there can't be absolute standards written that cover every possible issue, but some sort of documented standards in one centralized place would likely avert at least some issues.

I also don't think editor permissions are the way to go.

Regarding edit disputes, I'm thinking a dedicated thread or group to discuss the issue and once conclusion is reached something like disambiguation note, only with official LT 'seal of approval'. Disregarding such official note would be subject to short suspension and repeated ones to more drastic measures.

>5 norabelle414: yes, this.

>4 timspalding: I haven't seen anyone upset that a member being a constant and prolific editor. That's generally helpful! Our complaints are about someone not on the staff who has long come across as trying to control CK data with deletions and by discouraging members from contributing. That is distruptive, as well as creepy and irritating.

Imagine...

You've been working with a bunch of books or talking about an author when you see data you're interested in missing from LibraryThing. So you read the instructions for those fields/features and maybe (if you hadn't already) Help and a few relevant Talk topics for an appropriate way to enter that data.

You add the data.

Minutes, days, or weeks later, you have an angry message insulting you for entering it or you notice on your own that the data missing. Maybe you were in the middle of complicated edits when it happens, so you're not sure if the system glitched on you. And you really don't know why the member who messaged you is so hopping mad. When you look at the data that hasn't been completely deleted (disheartening!) but changed, you can't figure out why the change looks wrong. You'd made sure what you entered was good enough.

At that point, you have a choice to ignore what happened to continue adding data, decide that your efforts aren't helpful, or go to messages/Talk to ask for more info.

By going to Talk in this situation, you'll likely realize, possibly after more insults, that this happens frequently because of one editor, who is known to dig through edit histories (which you might not even know how to find) to change the data you entered about books you wrote, own, study, or know about through the author, or about the authors who might be you, a relative, a friend, or someone you've researched. The LT editor angrily following your edits is deleting or damage the data as if no one here has any connection to the works or authors.

It's not the same situation as when we all disagree about global-editing features.

ETA: Members-- I know I'm not the only one-- have been feeling as if the member has been excused for all this time, so it sometimes feels as if LT staff doesn't know what being a helper on this site feels like. That's why I'm starting into this thread the way I am.

>5 norabelle414:

Can you please not twist and selectively quote my words? I wrote:

"One member suggested that members need permission to be editors. This is quite clearly not a solution here. We're not dealing with edits from randos, we're dealing with members objecting to one of the most constant and prolific editors.

LibraryThing can of course prevent people from editing, but having a special editors group doesn't solve this problem.

The point is that having a barrier to entry in order to do edits isn't going to solve the problem. That is the only point I am making. My point was not to praise or excuse the member. it was to point out that Goodreads' solution--requiring people to apply to be editors--does not solve the problem.

>5 norabelle414: makes an important point. All this began with a problem with one member who, in behavioural terms, is an outlier, to put it mildly. I, too, have formed the impression that the editing activity is sometimes? Often? targeted at particular other members. I think that is unacceptable.

I suppose awkward people are common enough in social media and, if they bug you enough, you can usually find somewhere else to go. Lots of us here have put much time and effort into cataloguing our books and really want to stay.

Suggestions about better information about editing are worth following up but won’t solve this problem.

Obviously we could solve individual problems by kicking a member out.

But I think we'd be better creating some more general way to deal with edit wars, and clarifying what sorts of edits are unwelcome.

>1 karenb:
>2 timspalding:

I've been fairly quiet after starting all this, but reading the comments and other people's experiences, I think 90% of the problem is Collectorator. Given that this behaviour appears to be long-standing and has persisted after objections from other editors and (if I understand correctly) LT admins, I think he/she should simply be permanently banned from editing. Even if the vast majority of their edits are unobjectionable, the goal is not simply better data, but also a pleasant site to be on and contribute to for all the other users.

>11 timspalding: "I think we'd be better creating some more general way to deal with edit wars, and clarifying what sorts of edits are unwelcome."
>2 timspalding: "The answer will not be "Make rules and expectations more clear, so that users are less likely to make offensive edits." "

That's part of the problem on LT, we read one thing in one place and something else in another, and we don't know which applies.

Would it be possible to send messages to people whose edits have been re-edited saying "user x has re-edited your edits, if you feel that those changes are incorrect, it might be a good idea to discuss the matter in the Editing group (or whatever it gets called). Click here to create a relavant thread and invite user x to join the discussion."

If the click is made (I assume most of these messages would be ignored), then the first post to the proper group is automated by the system with all the relevant links. And an autopost to user x's profile is also made with a link to the discussion thread. And thus, any newbie is taken directly to the right place to go to make his case.

If these sorts of discussions are being held regularly and openly in a designated space, it ought to be easy for staff to see who the problematic editors are. If a re-editor never shows up, for example, that would be a clear indicator. If they show up, but are abusive and unwilling to listen, that would also be clear indication that yes, the staff should step in.

But most users here I think would welcome having edit questions discussed and clarified. So just helping them find the right place to do so ought to solve most of the problems.

Also newbies won't be made to feel persecuted or useless because of the actions of one user, because other users will see whats going on and can step in to offer thanks for their efforts, plus support and advice as needed.

>11 timspalding:
Tim, I disagree with your characterization of the problem. The reason we're having this conversation is not that editing disagreements are common. It's that one user has for years been systematically undoing edits they disagree with and responding with personal attacks when questioned. I don't think you've paid enough attention to this piece. This is what we're dealing with: https://postimg.cc/gwNgvdLY
If you were to look more closely at the previous discussion, you'd see that *several* of us have received a variation of this message at some point. This is the member's standard operating procedure.

Let's by all means figure out a more effective way to address editing wars. But please recognize that "the member everyone is angry about" not only mass-reverses edits for reasons apparent only to them, but also attacks us personally at every turn, in obvious violation of community rules, with impunity. THAT'S the demoralizing part, and I don't believe it's been adequately acknowledged.

>11 timspalding: Kicking the member out probably doesn’t ‘solve’ very much but may well be an appropriate utilitarian approach to improve the experience of the site for many, if not all, members who have posted in this discussion, not to mention others who haven’t. If the member in question can keep their own catalogue without having access to other areas, so much the better.

I wonder if edit wars are really much of a problem. Over the years I have had some disagreements with other members but, as far as I remember, they have been resolved by polite, and usually friendly, discussion.

And, still thinking about automatic discussion thread possibilities...

If it is possible to create direct connections between editable fields and talk threads (something like the Abouts?) Then when someone clicks on a field that already has a discussion thread there could be a pop up that says "The field you are attempting to edit has a discussion thread attached to it, please read that discussion before making changes." With four buttons: 1)Go directly to discussion. 2)Open discussion in new tab. 3)I have read the discussion and am confident my change will pass peer and staff review. 4)Never mind.

>16 abbottthomas:

I wonder if edit wars are really much of a problem.

I really don't think they are. In general, disagreements are hashed out in the Combiners group (or other appropriate groups) in a civil fashion. Most people are fine with corrections when the reasons are given. The rude, "I'm right and you're wrong, so shut up", stuff is pretty much confined to one individual.

>15 I-_-I:

I agree that's a violation. I think we need to respond better, but as regards the TOS, we have to stick to asking for specific messages. The right way here is for members to forward links to specific messages. I don't have a catalog of previous reports in my sleeve, but my impression is that the objections are mostly more general--that a user doesn't listen and is rude.

The trick is that it's easy for a user to be irritating and unfriendly without violating the terms. So I think we either need (1) new rules about what edits are or aren't allowed, (2) special terms for helpers, requiring people to be actively nice and constructive, or (3) some way for members to signal an edit war, and have it resolved.

>17 LShelby:

Yes, my thinking has been along your lines.

>8 aspirit: and >15 I-_-I:

Ditto. This member seems to lurk in the helper log and checks everyone’s work. It seems obsessive. I used to spend lots of effort splitting authors and adding disambig notes, links, photos and CK. Right in the midst of my project, it has more than once been undone. Very discouraging; and staff response has been inadequate.

Some ideas:

- Limit the number of edits per person per hour/day/week (I'm not a fan of this one but putting it out there anyway)

- Require 2 users to undo another user's edit

- Alert users when their edits have been undone, or at least show it in a list somewhere (e.g. https://www.librarything.com/yourfeed.php)

>21 norabelle414: "Limit the number of edits per person per hour/day/week"

Please no. When I have time and find a project to work on, I can make hundreds of edits in a day (or even in an hour on a thorny issue). Limiting everyone because of a single problematic member will just discourage people from solving the big messes out there.

And I really do not like the idea of needing two users to fix a typo for example...

Limit the number of edits per person per hour/day/week

I'm not a fan of that, either. I often spend a fair bit of time editing author CK, adding links, photos, etc., on a single author page. That's all "editing", and it would look like (and is) a lot, but it's just because I'm adding information that wasn't there before. And I'm not the only one! Also, some people just spend a chunk of time doing edits. "Hey, I'm bored, I'm stuck inside, I think I'll spend some time fixing things at LT."

So a limitation on the number of edits might mean a reduction in information.

>14 LShelby:, >21 norabelle414: I don't think that sending an automatic alert anytime someone changes or reverses a previous edit are a good idea. They might actually lead to an uptick in edit wars. I'm thinking about this as someone who is a casual helper. I only make changes if I notice something is wrong with an author or work which I either have or am very familiar with (usually non-English works or authors). If every such change sent a message to someone, I can easily see that spiraling into a back-and-forth, and I would be much more reluctant to contribute my occasional edits.

My casual once-in-a-while helper style seems very different from the extended projects other people undertake. Maybe there could be a way for people who want to undertake a big project to "claim" or "announce" it somewhere, so that changes would alert them. I'm not sure whether these claims or announcements should be permanent or not, but I think they should be opt-in, for those helpers who are devoting more time.

>24 Kanarthi: I think the alert everyone has in mind is a page where you can see that info in one place, not something that would pop up as a message every time. When you want to check what was edited of your edits, you'd go there to see if some stick out as questionable.

>25 SandraArdnas: Oh, if that's what's being proposed, I have far fewer objections!

>26 Kanarthi: It's my assumption. Constant influx of messages would be too annoying to practically everyone

>13 DuncanHill:

I wrote:

Similarly, this isn't about making things clearer. The answer will not be "Make rules and expectations more clear, so that users are less likely to make offensive edits." The member everyone is angry about has read everything. They aren't acting from ignorance.

Members have suggested the rules aren't easy to find. Maybe so. But the problem here is not acting from ignorance. Putting rules on every page. Putting links to rules. None of these things are going to solve a problem that isn't about the availability of the rules in the first place.

For the second issue pinpointed by >6 casvelyn:, I think that there should be two different levels of editing. On my own works I should always be able to do whatever I want; but when I modify CK or other things that affect everybody I believe that the staff must have the capability to stop an editor.

>29 .mau.:

Noone is talking about restricting (or monitoring) the changing the personal information of your own copy. Your book is your book - you can do whatever you want. :)

All the edits we are discussing are the CK ones and combinations/separations - things that influence the work level, not the book level.

>19 timspalding: (2) special terms for helpers, requiring people to be actively nice and constructive
Yes, this. Also please apply it to RL.

>18 lilithcat:
I agree with you both.

In a number of cases where I didn't know if the original user was right or wrong I have messaged them, and in cases where the work is widely held then asked for contributions in Combiners. I have seen many other CK editors do the same.

However the process doesn't work unless people engage. In the past we have seen a few people who seem pig-headed that their way was right and everyone else was wrong. Not only are these people hard to engage with, they also seem to have an enormous amount of doggedness - they will persist arguing the toss for much longer than anyone else, and may even try an edit again sometime later after the consensus was against them. Sometimes they don't really take notice of action (be it words, or a suspension) by LT staff - because they are so certain that they are correct, so I am not sure how I should really interact with them, let alone what site policies should be put in place.

>19 timspalding: Almost nobody likes reporting rude behaviour to the authorities. Most of the time it'll result in nothing more than the rude person being informed that someone has reported them (and it is often very obvious who that someone is). Flagging messages here on LT seems to work.

But you wouldn't want a rude person as teacher/police/etc., so yes, stricter rules for helpers is a good idea, i.e. if you make edits in CK you also have to play nice.

>31 MrAndrew: LOL. Yes, that would be nice.

My observation is that most people’s editing efforts have some connection to their own library and to books/authors/subjects about which they feel knowledgeable. I agree that it appears that Collectorator scans the Helper’s Log and then dives in to “fix” whatever edits someone on the very long Enemies List has been up to, leaving angry and contemptuous “disambiguation” messages along the way and responding with the same if anyone tries to contact her directly—-something most people avoid doing more than once unless they are gluttons for punishment. I think it’s a mistake to try to create a general rule to fix a specific problem. Collectorator states on her profile “I am perfectly odd.” This is someone who has joined a volunteer organisation and is now having regular run-ins with the other members. It’s not about editing rules; it’s a behavioural/psychological issue.

LibraryThing is not exempt from the laws of evolution. Create an environment where abusers need to go to extremes to get kicked out, and you will weed among the people who contribute so that people who like fights will thrive and people who don't will leave.

>18 lilithcat: "Most people are fine with corrections when the reasons are given. The rude, "I'm right and you're wrong, so shut up", stuff is pretty much confined to one individual."

>20 2wonderY: "This member seems to lurk in the helper log and checks everyone’s work. It seems obsessive..Very discouraging; and staff response has been inadequate."

>35 anglemark: "..people who like fights will thrive and people who don't will leave."

>27 SandraArdnas:
I wouldn't be getting a constant influx of messages, because I don't do that much work and so people re-editing my edits is rare. I would find it convenient to receive such messages on my wall with the top bar tell-tale, and an email alert.

But I can see how people who got multiple such messages a day might find it overwhelming.

Maybe combine the notices into a single 'digest' message posted once a day? Or provide a separate tab and tell-tale for them, (if there is an asterisk next to your unread messages number that means...), and have email alerts for them be a separate option?

And, thinking about TOS amendments (the one suggested above sounds like a great idea)...

If an associated discussion thread system was put in place, there should probably be a note in the TOS saying that although participating in the discussion threads is optional, making changes that disregard the contents of the associated discussion thread, if any, is a TOS violation, and repeat offenses can cause your editing privileges to be revoked.

So, to use an example from the previous thread, User Y divides an author and writes a disambiguation notice explaining the split. User X comes through and undoes the split. User Y requests a discussion, and posts explaining his research that led to the original split. User X does not make an appearance. User Y has discussed and no opposing view was posted, so User Y now has the right to redo the split. If User X removes the split again without first appearing in the discussion thread, posting an explanation, and receiving some kind of support, Bam! TOS violation.

Would that work?

>38 LShelby: Regarding notifications about edits, if they are gathered in one place they can be made into a module like the ones we already use on our home pages, so anyone can make it as prominent/non-prominent as they want. I personally wouldn't want that to come in the form of messages, daily or otherwise, but a log that gets updated. Messages come when I don't want them AND they are split so when I actually want to review the edit history, I have to trawl through all the different ones instead of just scrolling through a single log.

As for resolving disputes, I really think once the issue is resolved in a manner you describe some kind of official LT note to that effect is needed. Otherwise, it is too easy to miss it, esp. for someone who has not been involved in the dispute previously. Besides, someone needs to be the final arbiter, deciding when the discussion has run its course and what the verdict is. The official note would also point to discussion if someone wants to argue differently, but warn not to edit without an OK

One thing that has come out of all of this discussion (at least for me) is that I have a better sense of the ethos of fellow Combiners/Ck editors, etc. I've been leery of asking questions in the groups when I come upon something I don't know how to do b/c I assumed Collectorator's voice was representative of everyone else's (which assumption was stupid & baseless). Rather than risk demeaning unpleasantness, I've left things uncorrected/unentered or even maybe done them wrong (as Collectorator pointed out with regard to my aliasing). I really appreciate the voices in this & the other thread. It would help enormously to have one clear space with instructions for editing but in the absence of that, it's heartening to read that we're mostly kind and collegial people. I'll feel less afraid to ask questions now & maybe others will, too, and that can only improve the site & our experiences here.

>40 susanbooks: Susan, you're not alone in having left things undone in order to avoid unpleasantness. I have a stack of uncatalogued books that I haven't entered because at times I get so demoralised by Collectorator's behaviour - and the (until now) pointlessness of trying to get anything done about it. There are others where they have gone through my library changing things - and getting them wrong even by their definition - that I haven't bothered to go back and put right. If I could hide my library from Collectorator I would.

>39 SandraArdnas: I really would have no reason to be perusing a log of who has edited my edits, nor would I have a reason to give it priority on my module pages. (Which I hardly ever look at anyway.) It just wouldn't happen often enough to be worth it.

The new users (many of whom wouldn't even be able to find such a module) and the casual editors, would need to get some kind of visible notification that something has happened, or the whole proposed system might as well not exist as far as they are concerned.

...Which doesn't mean I think a log is a bad idea. It sounds like it would be very useful to some users.

But would a "daily digest" comment on your wall telling you what edits to your edits had been made the day before, and providing links to request discussion, really be such a terrible thing to have happen to all you super active editors?

It doesn't sound that intolerable to me, but I'm not there. My "daily digests" probably wouldn't' arrive more than once a month, if that.

>40 susanbooks: & >41 DuncanHill: Yes, that's the saddest part of it. It's really discouraging. Why bother, if your hard work gets undone without a second thought?

>42 LShelby:

But would a "daily digest" comment on your wall telling you what edits to your edits had been made the day before, and providing links to request discussion, really be such a terrible thing to have happen to all you super active editors?

Yes, if there were a lot of edits, it would be quite annoying and intrusive.

>44 lilithcat: Agreed.

This situation is clearly a case of one person ruining it for everyone else. Collectorator clearly relishes causing distress, irritation and anger. I’ve had him/her blocked for years. In my experience there is no reasoning with this person. To try is to feed the love of conflict C enjoys. S/he is dogged when everyone else just wants to either sharpen up their own catalogs or make the site more data rich for all. Deliberately perverting, changing and deleting data is C’s mission. C must be the final word and the only authority. Motivation doesn’t interest me, but I wonder why one person’s obvious goal of screwing with people earns them the privilege to do so. If that’s how LT wants things, well I guess the rest of us will give up in the face of such relentless negativity and endless frustration. Community be damned.

>42 LShelby: I'm a very casual editor and I think that receiving messages would lead to an uptick in edit disputes, as I pointed out in post >24 Kanarthi:. I would also get frustrated by daily digests. A module or log which updates without notifications would be a better option from my perspective.

I don't have them blocked. But they made me loose interest in partaking in legacy libraries and such initiatives. I can't and won't check on all of those every day too, when someone just says "heehee, you're wrong" and overrules actual research.

>41 DuncanHill:
Same here. I don't have uncatalogued books, but LT has ceased to be my master record a long time ago. Now I just put in the basic info I need and don't bother with the rest. The rest (including biographical author data, series/publisher series and lists) is in my own offline master database. I trust the ISFDB before I trust LT.

>47 Kanarthi: I confess that your response completely bewilders me.

I am wondering if you are defining "casual editor" the same way I am, and just how many so-called "daily digests" you are expecting to get.

While we’re at it could staff address the bad puppy in Pro & Con who has taken to piddling in all the threads there?

>50 LShelby: Kanarthi elaborated his/her concerns in >24 Kanarthi:

Personally, while I could live with one daily message, it would be useless to me because like I said when I want to go through the edit history every once in a while, I wouldn't bother to go through at least 15 or 20 different messages (assuming daily digests). But there are certainly ways to send alerts to those who want them without making them the only option.

>52 SandraArdnas: I thought that part of the response was about the contention concerns in >24 Kanarthi: and the rest of it was more in regards to the frequency/botheration issue. If it was all about the possible contention caused by this approach, I can get my brain around it better. :)

I don't really know what to say about concerns that such a system would cause contention that doesn't otherwise exist. The idea that there might be more public arguing doesn't actually bother me much. I am far more bothered by the idea that people are giving up on making valid fixes because a few maverick editors are being privately abusive.

...
I also have to admit that I am getting really curious to how many cases of re-editing actually happen daily around here, and how many such messages would end up going to the top editors daily.

For myself, the only case I can remember of someone editing my edits was when I was setting up my author page, and my combining my legal name with my pen-name was repeatedly undone. (Not maliciously, but because my pen name uses an initial only.) Adding a polite request to cease and desist in the disambiguation notice solved the problem. That was over eight years ago. If anyone has re-edited anything I did since then, it has escaped my notice.

So, you could see why it wouldn't originally occur to me that having a post made to my wall every time it happened could be a problem, and why I consider creating a special log that I would have to go check manually is absolutely unacceptable to me. I'm not going to want to go and regularly check for something that has so far happened --as far as I know-- only once in the fourteen years I have been here, and may never happen again.

>53 LShelby:

my combining my legal name with my pen-name was repeatedly undone.

Probably because your pen-name uses the same initial and surname as several authors on LT.

If someone decides to catalog their book by Lisa Shelby or Linda Shelby or Lane Shelby as "L. Shelby" (which happens), a mess would be created.

>53 LShelby: I've made around 25 work combinations, about 100 CK contributions, and I've combined or separated fewer than 10 authors. That seems casual to me. I'm mostly using LT to use talk, add to my library, or get book recommendations. When I visit the website to check talk, I don't want to get a message that someone made a silly edit to something I sorted out, as I would feel obligated to correct it or to message them and resolve the dispute. That would be distracting and annoying, even if it only happened once a year. I'm not as personally invested in my edits because I'm not an author. If I had extra time some day and felt like checking out the log (which would probably be necessary because people make stupid decisions when they aren't familiar with foreign names in non-Latin alphabets or translated titles), that wouldn't be a problem. I oppose any system of automatic messages unless it's opt-in, both to reduce edit wars and to avoid getting derailed by edits which aren't high-priority to me.

Whatever changes there are, casual editors and serious editors each have different priorities, and it's challenging to balance those. Making it a communal standard that disambiguation notices have links to talk posts where the issue was discussed might be one improvement? I'm certainly less qualified to offer suggestions than more regular helpers.

Edited to fix link to post.

>55 Kanarthi:

Making it a communal standard that disambiguation notices have links to talk posts where the issue was discussed might be one improvement?

The more I think about it, the less appealing this is, for a couple of reasons.

One is that a lot of people don't use disambiguation notices, either because they can't be bothered, or because the field isn't necessarily appropriate for the edit they made.

More to the point is that a lot of those "discussions" can get very convoluted and, as we've seen, heated, which I think would be more discouraging and confusing, particularly to the "casual" or new editor, than less.

>53 LShelby: You're counting on only potentially contentious edits, but in reality the vast majority are minor (e.g. typos) or not really edits of your edit at all. Whenever I add a quote to CK, for instance, the history shows me as editing the entire field even though I haven't really edited anyone's quote, just added another one. For any author I've combined, it will report to me when another combination was made, not only when someone has undone my work. Etc, etc.

>54 lilithcat:

I know why. I also discussed this matter in Combiners at the time, because luckily I had been active here for six years previous to becoming an LT Author, and I knew where to go.

If you want to rehash the logic behind the decision that was reached at that time, we should probably take it to a different thread.

Where do I even go to see what edits I've done and if any of them have been undone? I have zero idea where to even look for that kind of thing.

>59 BookstoogeLT: Currently, I don't think there's such an option. Zeitgeist - helpers log is where you can check edits in the past 7 days (by anyone, not just you) and most parts where edits are done like CK have 'history' link, where you can see (entire?) edit history for that particular entry

>58 LShelby:

If you want to rehash the logic

Not necessary.

>60 SandraArdnas: Thanks. Well, I guess I'll continue doing my series edits once every other month or so and call it good. Cheers.

>59 BookstoogeLT: Is this what you're asking for?

http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/search.php?q=BookstoogeLT&f=user...

>63 spiralsheep: Close enough! Thanks. Does make me wonder what happened in May to make me stop doing work. Oh well. Thanks again :-)

>59 BookstoogeLT: there's https://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/search.php?q=BookstoogeLT&f=use.... To see what's deleted by another member, you either have to know who made the deletion to go into their search results* or think to check the history of the work, series, or author.

*Note: Deletions disappear from a member's list when data is re-entered.

Ha. I crossposted with >63 spiralsheep:. My kid had like a hundred questions and comments about a project set up beside me during those 15 minutes.

>65 aspirit: :-D Isn't that the way of it? Thank you for chiming in.

As for the issue at hand, if one person is causing all the issues and Tim claims they haven't broken any rules, then I think Tim had better take a look at the rules. Or you do like Wordpress does and make things vague enough so the Powers That Be can operate as they see fit.

>51 2wonderY: Even Tim feeds the bad puppy, so I guess not.
http://www.librarything.com/topic/326001#7324569

I can see why some like the entertainment value in having a pet troll, but for me it's just an illustration of why not to feed them.

The flagging mechanism also basically tells us not to flag trolling.
Flag this message? LibraryThing prohibits personal attacks, name-calling, commercial solicitation and spam, but not much else. Disagreeing with the content of a message is not grounds for flagging.

>51 2wonderY: “LibraryThing prohibits personal attacks, name calling......”

The UIQ* does lots of both.

* user in question

>51 2wonderY: I believe the only recourse is to block and ignore. Every response makes him stronger; ignoring him completely does provide relief.

>70 Matke:. I’m willing for that.

>71 2wonderY: I sent you a DM.

Just chiming in as a newer ck adder - UIQ yelled at me when I made an error two or three years ago when I hit separate in error and was trying to figure out how to repair it. Since that time I have never made a author post without asking for "Combiners Help" I won't make that mistake again.

And after reading this thread I think I will make even less contribution, most have been combinations of titles (not of Harry Potter level of books), I leave those alone. I wish there was a CK type page for my books that were not common/global

I am here because I enjoy books, and want to track my books, not argue or be abused. I can handle my own depression but I don't need someone pushing me over the edge with negativity.

Think I will be adding more to my personal database though I plan to continue combining titles. If someone has an issue with an edit I don't mind a post to my wall, I like to learn .. but I thought that was frowned on (I remember reading something about that one I first joined LT).

>73 Bettesbooks: If someone has an issue with an edit I don't mind a post to my wall, I like to learn .. but I thought that was frowned on (I remember reading something about that one I first joined LT).

Generally, it's recommended we don't. However, there are some members who have written on their profile that they welcome feedback when they make mistakes. You might put up such a notice there.

>74 anglemark: Thanks I will do that.

So >28 timspalding: Any concrete thoughts about how to control the negative activities of this one person who seems to be causing an extreme level of discouragement among users who are trying to make LT a better place? The bottom line: I think, based on how long this has been going on, some kind of action is needed.

>76 krazy4katz:

See https://www.librarything.com/topic/326689

>77 lilithcat: Thank you for the link. I agree that is a good solution.

>77 lilithcat: I read through that thread. Is it actually accomplishing anything?

>80 BookstoogeLT: It's at least proving that civilized discussion is possible, which is no mean feat in this context.

>80 BookstoogeLT: It allows C to explain what they're doing (and others to voice their objections) - and then staff can make a decision. Hopefully this will ultimately lead to some set of clear directions on how to handle such things. So: maybe.

>82 Nicole_VanK: Has Collectorator “explained” why she is so rude and angry? I don’t think so.

>83 booksaplenty1949: No, but maybe we can prevent them from flying off the handle over such situations in future.

Only if there is the threat of some sanction being imposed. As you have pointed out elsewhere, Collectorator confines her response to these threads to explaining to Tim Spalding why she thinks John Smith (24) should be John Q. Smith, or Picnic Time for Teddybears should be combined with Picnic Time for Teddy Bears. Nothing about her stalking, nothing about her rude, contemptuous “disambiguation” messages, nothing to address the fact that many people have blocked her after such messages were sent to them personally. If this were a club or a store she would have been ejected long ago.