Edit warring is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. There is some
difficulty in getting the Arbitration Committee to severely sanction "good"
edit warriors, but some of us keep trying. A dedicated edit warrior will
return over and over again to us and eventually the whole Committee goes
along (or the user learns other ways to resolve disputes besides endless
reverting).
Fred
From: Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:57:16 -0800
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed
At 03:17 PM 1/17/2005 -0700, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it would be a good idea to form a team of
"no original research"
checkers who have the right to violate 3RR, and on whom any editor
could call for help in the case of a revert war triggered by an editor
adding unreferenced claims. The job of this team would be to ask for a
reference and then to determine whether the reference offered was a
reputable one. If not, the team would have the right to keep reverting
until the POV pusher got fed up.
Since the POV pusher is someone who is repeatedly, consistently and with
malice aforethought inserting material that goes against Wikipedia policy,
I think it would be best to expedite the work of ArbCom so that the
POV-pusher can simply be banned rather than setting up a group of official
edit warriors whose job is to try out-pushing him on his own terms. I
believe edit wars would be just as troublesome when they're officially
sanctioned as when they aren't.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l