Ed Poor wrote:
> Thus I would like to propose the formation of a sort of club
> or SIG within Wikipedia - sort of on the lines of the old semi-
> humorous Wikipedia 'militia' - a group of contributors who will
> join to intervene in edit wars and work together to create a
> stable and neutral article, one which all parties to the edit
> war would agree is correct and good and satisfying.
Sounds good, but you assume, that people are willing to accept the
intervention of this "militia". I don't oppose this proposal, but we
have to think ahead: What will we do with those who refuse to abandon
their behaviour?
My thoughts:
1. The rejection of edit wars should become Wikipedia policy (and not
just a voluntary guideline).
2. If an edit war is emerging, the parties involved are forced either
to discuss the issue on the talk page or to leave the article forever.
3. If a participant refuses to discuss, but continues reverting in
spite of active discussion on the talk page, (s)he should face
consequences: first warning, second warning, ban (something like
that).
Currently we have especially one edit warrior on Wikipedia, who
actually announced, that he would revert the articles in question
after their unprotection, regardless of the outcome of the discussions
ongoing on the corresponding talk pages.
And he did more than once. We won't change his behaviour with Ed's
proposed intervention group.
Mirko.
P.S.: I am really happy, that this is actually discussed now.