Cody (Plautus Satire) wrote a lot of stuff, but especially:
> In all three cases where I was banned it was to settle
> disputed edits. The wikipedia guidelines state that bans
> and page protections are ONLY to be used in cases of
> persisent vandalism.
We are going through a transition period. Until last year,
only Jimbo could officially ban a user. He would do so
reluctantly and after a great deal of mailing list discussion
-- and often the very public resignation of a long-term
valuable contributor.
This year, we set up two committees to relieve Jimbo of the
burden and to formalize the community process. Many people
felt the new committees weren't working well, and some users
even tried to take advantage of what came to be called the
"power vacuum", i.e., an absence of authority.
So a few admins (including me - once) stepped in and by-passed
the committees, engaging in "vigilante action".
Instead, I think, we should stick with the committee system.
Now I'm not sure what went on between Cody and Raul, but I know one
thing: if it came down to a case of:
* if I make one more reversion, I will get banned
...then I would leave the article alone. There are plenty of other
articles that require my attention, not to mention work and so forth in
the real world!
My advice is: don't push it. In other words, if someone keeps reverting
my edit 2 or more times, it's time for Uncle Ed to stop editing that
page. At least for a day or two.
I'm just as passionate as anyone else, and I get into edit wars from
time to time. But my personal rule is "If I think I'm in an edit war,
it's time to stop editing." Because no one ever wins an edit war.
Admins can protect pages and ask other admins to take a look,
if there's a seriouse conflict. Banning without going to the
committees first should only be done in an emergency. Please
use your most careful and delicate sense of judgment before
declaring an emergency.
Ed Poor
One of many Wikipedia Admins