I haven’t been involved in any verbal sparing with Zoe so perhaps I am not the best person to propose wording of a warning. Perhaps a warning isn’t even what is needed so much as explaining clearly the problem that the community is having with her posting.

I recently noticed an exchange in UnAmerican which involved a seemingly bizarre post in the middle of an Iraq discussion which linked to a Star Wars article. Several posters questioned the seemingly inappropriate post. A few posts later Zoe explained her reasoning behind the Star Wars link. The whole exchange would not have been so testy if not for the previous problems. Most (not all) of the exchanges that have deteriorated into rudeness when isolated were no big deal. At this point anytime that Zoe posts something seemingly unsuitable it sparks a flurry of reaction by members with already frayed nerves.

Suggested wording –

Zoe, a number of members of this community are frustrated with your style of posting and it is causing a problem we feel needs to be addressed. The objectionable posts have included posts which appear to have no connection to topics being discussed and offensive remarks. Exchanges involving members questioning the logic of your posts have escalated to rudeness which is upsetting to most of the community. In the spirit of maintaining a harmonious community we request you carefully examine your posts and make every effort to explain your points without being rude to other members.

I also might include my tag which I just took out of retirement again.

eta: 12 more posts while I wrote this so I have to back up and see if it is already covered.

Seriously, guys.

Some sort of peaceful protest which addresses the situation without conflagrating it could be of use to us.

At this point anytime that Zoe posts something seemingly unsuitable it sparks a flurry of reaction by members with already frayed nerves.

Has KateP been hanging out in Beauro? I can't remember who I've seen here, but I didn't think she'd been chiming in, so I read her response to Zoe's post as not stemming from this discussion. Which may be my mistake.

What Laura mentions is what I had in mind by bridging the gap. Explain the problem. Put the onus on the problematic poster, but don't give it any teeth. In other words, treat the poster as a member of the community, because the poster doesn't seem to leave the community at any time in the near future.

Some sort of peaceful protest which addresses the situation without conflagrating it could be of use to us.

From my perspective, as I noted upthread, 23 people parrotting a code word at me is not non-conflagrating. Being given a chance (should I care to take it) to explain myself would antagonise me less.

Zoe, a number of members of this community are frustrated with your style of posting and it is causing a problem we feel needs to be addressed. The objectionable posts have included posts which appear to have no connection to topics being discussed and offensive remarks. Exchanges involving members questioning the logic of your posts have escalated to rudeness which is upsetting to most of the community. In the spirit of maintaining a harmonious community we request you carefully examine your posts and make every effort to explain your points without being rude to other members.

I'm going to suggest that any official intervention be worded an awful lot more simply and clearly. Short sentences. Simple words. As little opportunity as possible for confusion or misunderstanding. More down to earth.

Explain the problem.

Yes. That. Dialogue. I'm for gap-bridging.

I like Laura's wording. Am not sure I understand Nutty's 4 second rule, but I haven't been following the voting discussions.

Alright, it's the first beautiful day in yonks and my dog is staring at me like I'm insane. We're going for a walk.

Just one last plea that we find a means of peaceful protest. If we act deliberately we can have a sit-in instead of a pile-on.

Pardon me Trudy, but are you proposing that if any five people agree then that is enough to give someone an official warning? That is one proposer and four seconds gives the warning that they have done something wrong and must change their ways?