On 2/21/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
It's not the obvious vandalism that's a problem, it's the number of
people,
growing every day, who see an article, try to fix it, and get whacked by
an
over-eager, over-egoed, over-caffeine-dosed admin who's lost the ability
to
distinguish from a real vandal and someone trying to [[Be Bold]] and fix
a
problem.
I can see two possible patterns a newbie editor can get into when trying to "fix" a "defended" article.
bold/revert/talk/shrug/go play elsewhere
bold/revert/bold/revert/bold/revert/go WTF on talk
page/bold/revert/bold/revert/ bold/revert/more dickery on talk page/block/sockpuppets/block/lather/rinse/repeat
As far as you know, have any of these innocent newbie editors drew the wrath of a "rogue admin" following pattern 1?
You're drawing a false route There are more possibilities than that:
0. Obvious vandalism from the start: no question on blocking, and I really have no problem with blocking.
1. bold/revert/talk/shrug/leave
2. bold/revert/argue/blocked/leave - This one's been made into an enemy of wikipedia
3. bold/revert/get abused by POV clique - Another enemy of wikipedia now
4. bold/revert/bold/revert/bold/etc (Your #2) - congratulations, you've made an enemy again.
5. bold/revert/bold/talk/reverted by others/accused of being a sockpuppet of someone previous/angry at false accusation... and again, wikipedia's made an enemy.
Parker