New supposedly experienced software developer disrupting my existing work in volunteer organisation is closed because "Questions require a goal that we can address".

How does this question not have a goal? The last sentence explicitly states a goal.

How can I regain credibility and convince them Steve is actively disrupting my work?


As per now, the question has been reopened.

However I agree in part with Masked Man's answer; saying "and convince them Steve is actively disrupting my work" could be a bit biased, or at least assuming that Steve is actually doing that.

By phrasing it that way you are passively rejecting alternate answers you may get, with other points of view to give a comprehensive and complete analysis of the situation. In other words, you are not open to the possibility of alternate courses of action that do not require to actively expose your coworker's behavior (you are saying "Steve is wrong, how can I convince them of such", but leave no room for other analysis).

So, the question is now open, but for future reference I suggest you phrase your question in a more neutral or open way, so it does not sound biased or like a false premise, and also so you get more answers to consider as many scenarios as possible.

You must log in to answer this question.

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