Please forgive me if this has already been suggested; I only just
subscribed to this list yesterday.
I think the 3-revert should be a guideline, with a direct warning on the
user's talk page when it is violated. If the user continues to revert the
page, and doesn't at that point start having a sane conversation about how
to deal with the issue, then the person is being obsequious and
uncommunicative and that is ample reason for a 24-hour ban.
moink
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:
When *I* voted on that poll some week ago, the
poll was about whether
there should be a *guideline* that reads "do not do more than three
reverts" or not. Nowhere on that page did it say that the poll really
was about whether to allow admins to block a user that reverts three
times or not.
Many of the 51+ persons that has voted probably did not either
understand that the vote was about bannings. If that is what the vote
is about and not just a guideline.
I share Bjorn's concern.
It's one thing to say that we have a very strong community guideline
or norm that says 3 reverts in a day is enough. It's quite another
thing to introduce an entirely new paradigm in which 24 hour bans are
made for things that are not really emergency situations.
I'm not 100% opposed to the idea, but my foot dragging on making any
sort of decree about this is grounded in the fact that I see this as a
rather radical departure from past practice.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l