Erik Moeller wrote:
Poor,-
According to my reading of the edit history of [[Augusto Pinochet]], both 172 and VV engaged in a "more than 3 times" reversion war.
The edit war is mostly about whether the intro should state that the 1973 coup was "US backed", with some (primarily 172) arguing that this is an indisputable fact, and others (primarily VV) holding that it is controversial and therefore needs to be written in NPOV "many believe" style. Majority opinion is on 172's side, and Encarta also uses the "United States backed" phrase.
I initially agreed with VV that some compromise was needed, but last week new evidence was revealed in the form of a transcript of a conversation between Kissinger and Nixon, shortly after the coup, in which Kissinger flat-out stated "We helped them" and Nixon responded "That's right". In my opinion, in combination with the sum of the evidence (including a CIA memo which states that Allende should be overthrown with a coup, and that the American hand should be "well hidden"), this justifies the phrase "United States backed". VV sees no reason to change his position.
172 has long proposed a compromise, namely a footnote behind the "United States backed" to clarify what it means, but VV has ignored that compromise. I have worked with him on another compromise intro with the "many believe" phrase, but I feel this is no longer adequate in light of the new evidence.
Both 172 and VV have edit warred repeatedly on the article in violation of policy. In addition, there have been a number of personal attacks.
I'm against banning either of them from Wikipedia as a whole, but a 3 month ban from editing [[Augusto Pinochet]] may be a good idea. The sad result of these edit wars is that the article has been protected for much of its lifespan, which is obviously completely against the spirit of a wiki.
I think that a quickpoll was held on the matter when quickpolls for three- revert violations were still in effect. The result was a vote for banning VV but not for banning 172. This is one of the reasons people, including myself, have become skeptical about the procedure: it ends up as a popularity contest. If we have a three revert rule, everyone should have to respect it.
I've looked at the matter and I agree with Erik on this. I've never been keen about the 3-revert rule because it accomplishes nothing. A 50-revert rule would do no better. The state of an article when the warriors have reache the threshold might just as well be determined by a toss of a coin. After each has had his three reverts they wait until the next day and have three new reverts each; that accomplishes nothing either.
The side which provides reference and sources in an argument should be given preference. Opposition to those sources is valid, but that too needs some basis in reality. It is not enough to oppose something because it would cause embarassment to one's favoured side. NPOV is best attained when we can accept substantiated information contrary to our own point of view. It makes an article much easier to read than one sprinkled with weasel words..
Ec