On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/24/06, fireislandparadise
<fireislandparadise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My problem is that not requiring a warning
encourages gaming by making it
easier for a more savvy edit warrior to take advantage of another editor and
play "gotcha". This is particularly the case as most editors aren't aware
of
the new "unrelated reverts" interpretation. If someone is savvy enough to
complain on ANI/3RR they should be capable of giving someone a warning
first, especially if they are a participant in the edit war.
Is "gotcha" a big problem? Let's see:
* You can only do it once, ever, to a single editor
* You can only do it when the person has reverted 3 times in a single
day, something we wish to discourage
* The punishment is only banning for 24 hours.
Sure, it could happen. But it's probably not worth worrying about.
* The punishment is only banning for 24 hours.
: Yes, but some people, after discovering wikipedia, think a temporary
block amounts to censorship, violating rights, constitutions stuff
blah blah blah. I've seen it even for 1-3 hours blocking.
:So, can't edit wikipedia for a few hours? What a terrible thing!!
but live with it and move on.
The problem is not with the length of the punishment, but in the
punitive attitude of some cowboy vigilantes.
Ec