On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 20:47, koyaanisqatsi(a)nupedia.com wrote:
Jeronimo proposed:
Anyway, maybe it is better to have something like
this: If a user
repeatedly violates some rule, convention, whatever and has ignored
pleas from others to follow that rule, we could raise some flag in the
database and show the user a page with "Other Wikipedians have not you
have repeatedly violated X. Please read this documentation over X. If
you disagree with X, please go to Talk:X or Wikipedia-L. If you continue
to disrespect X, other measures may follow...".
This I don't like because it puts undue emphasis on rules to consider. Except for
NPOV and respect of copyrights, all "rules" here are simply "to
consider".
Lee pointed out that the underlying issue is working with others. Perhaps on some
prominent page (even the main page?) we could make it explicit that in order to keep this
thing going (and we've got a good thing going), playing nice with others is a must.
Not so much as a rule or something draconian and non-negotiable, but just a
reminder--"hey, look what you're doing. Let's try to work together, and make
contributions pleasant and respectful."
People are all missing a reasonable course of action.
Ignore the bad edits for a while.
Noone will die if the Christopher Columbus article is imperfect for 10
minutes, or 24 hours, or even a week.
People are encouraged by feedback, both positive and negative. A
complete lack of feedback will generally lead to boredom. Especially if
you let "radical idiots" (my term) expend lots of energy, then silently,
without making a big deal, revert 90% of their effort (90% because even
absurd edits usually have some level of validity).
An implacable and slow reaction to extreme behavior is one of the best
courses to take.
No need to ban people.
Remember: we're in this for the long haul.
--tc