On 2/21/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002(a)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.
1. bold/revert/talk/shrug/go play elsewhere
2. 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
--
====
Parker Peters