On Nov 15, 2007 4:10 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
No, it remains the case that the way not to get
blocked for
edit-warring is not to edit-war.
Play the long game. Leave the ardent edit warrior to their own
devices.
In effective overturning something after 6 months is near impossible.
Come back in due course. Most editors only stay
active six to
eighteen months. We're building an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
The rational thing to do then becomes to speed up the burnout.
Ignoring the normal decision making process and sooner or latter you
will run into someone prepared to do likewise. I could have made the
spoiler issue end very differently with less than half a dozen users.
--
geni
It's not "could have made". The issue is not settled until either:
* A working "actual agreement" consensus is achieved on-wiki, or...
* Everyone who is pro-spoiler-warnings and able to fight the multilevel
policy fight (such as a few of us here) choses explicitly rather than
implicity to simply let it go.
The email that started this posed the question falsely, by assuming that it
was settled. The definition of consensus that includes "but nobody who can
make a fight for it stick has gone after the problem... yet" is a dangerous
presumption.
It's particularly dangerous because it leads to people thinking that they
have the actual working agreement consensus and can start taking
extraordinary measures against those seen as troublemakers against that
false consensus.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com