On 2/22/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
But one can not legitimately "defend" an article against a newbie being bold in a good faith effort to fix an article.
But what if previous consensus has determined that it "ain't broke"?
A newbie being bold is not, in and of itself, a violation of any policy.
No it's not. And if the newbie is being whacked by an admin acting as the article's pit bull after a bold or two then yes, the admin himself should be whacked.
This should never happen...
bold/revert/bold/whack
However, this is what we see in too many of these cases...
bold/revert/bold/revert/dick/whack
Quite the contrary, we encourage it. If a change to an article does not violate policy but is reverted, and then the change stonewalled on the talk page, the "defender" is violating policy ([[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]]),
And this can be responded too by the dispute resolution procedures. This is mentioned in WP:OWN. If the "newbie editor" responds with "dickery" then whether or not he's right or wrong he will get whacked, not for the bold but for the dickery and I don't believe you can argue that he was goaded into being a dick (uncivil, personal attacks etc.) or somehow magically made to act like a dick by the article's "gang".