Erik asked:
What exactly is page protection going to accomplish [...] ?
Slight correction: protection on the version that problem user X doesn't like. It's going to accomplish the important task of annoying people who engage in excessive reversions, and pleasing people who don't engage in excessive reversions. I believe that these are called a "stick" and "carrot", respectively.
[the 24hr ban] policy has been sabotaged for nonsensical reasons
If by "sabotage" you mean that I and eleven other people have voted against a policy that you support, and by "nonsensical reasons" you mean "reasons that Erik disagrees with", then I should remind you that disagreeing with your good self is not yet a crime. We can discuss matters civilly, or we can start accusing each other of sabotage. Experience suggests that the former tends to be more productive over the long term.
If people like Wik can engage in edit wars without serious consequences, and I on the other hand am attacked for doing what I can to intervene [...], then it is clear that the Wikipedia community as a whole *wants* edit wars to happen.
Well, let's see. You do something people don't like, and you get complaints. Wik does something people don't like, and Wik gets complaints. I'm not sure how you finesse that into a community desire for edit wars. Especially given that the overwhelming majority of the community have expressed their dislike of edit wars, just as you have.
If you don't like complaints, I humbly suggest that you don't do things that cause people to complain. Those people who complain about certain of your actions are most likely doing so because they do not like certain of your actions, logically enough.
I protected the page which Wik had blanked repeatedly and - gasp - edited it afterwards
Yes, it seems you protected [[McFly]], and reverted it to the version that Wik didn't like. If only there was some sort of suggested policy to allow for that! If there was such a suggestion, it would probably have been suggested by some good-looking individual such as myself, perhaps on [[wikipedia talk:revert]], and mentioned a few days ago on this mailing list.
If I sound angry, that's because I am.
If I sound like I have a headache and a cold, that's because I have. But that probably doesn't come across so well over the internet.
Many people are annoyed at some of the problems Wikipedia currently has, and that's perfectly understandable. If you must get angry, get angry with the problems, not with the community as a whole. We all have the same goal here, we just differ as to the best route to it.
-Martin
Martin-
Slight correction: protection on the version that problem user X doesn't like.
That's completely pointless if the user doesn't really care about what version a page remains in but enjoys the process of fighting per se. That seems to be the case with Wik. He reverts, reverts, reverts, reverts, then he even *asks* for protection of the page. As soon as it becomes unprotected again, he will continue reverting to his preferred version. This happened with [[McFly]] -- I unprotected it three times already, and every time Wik came back to revert it almost instantly. It is protected to this day. So what are we gonna do -- keep it protected forever? That is an unfair punishment of everyone else.
No, the right thing to do is to tell this user to either abide by our rules or go away. This is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of fact.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote
No, the right thing to do is to tell this user to either abide by our rules or go away. This is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of fact.
I agree with the thrust of what Erik is saying (though not with this way of saying it). I think it's not hard to prove that edit wars damage the content of Wikipedia, in more than one way (neglect, concentration on peripheral points, sensible people keeping a safe distance). So any argument against eventual enforcement of tough policies must be in the terms that they may do more damage. I really don't see it - for most edit wars, and most users, stamping them out would just lead to sighs of relief all round.
Charles
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Martin-
Slight correction: protection on the version that problem user X doesn't like.
That's completely pointless if the user doesn't really care about what version a page remains in but enjoys the process of fighting per se. That seems to be the case with Wik. He reverts, reverts, reverts, reverts, then he even *asks* for protection of the page. As soon as it becomes unprotected again, he will continue reverting to his preferred version. This happened with [[McFly]] -- I unprotected it three times already, and every time Wik came back to revert it almost instantly. It is protected to this day. So what are we gonna do -- keep it protected forever? That is an unfair punishment of everyone else.
Keep it protected for Wik only. Open for others.
Anthere wrote:
Erik Moeller a écrit:
That's completely pointless if the user doesn't really care about what version a page remains in but enjoys the process of fighting per se. That seems to be the case with Wik. He reverts, reverts, reverts, reverts, then he even *asks* for protection of the page. As soon as it becomes unprotected again, he will continue reverting to his preferred version. This happened with [[McFly]] -- I unprotected it three times already, and every time Wik came back to revert it almost instantly. It is protected to this day. So what are we gonna do -- keep it protected forever? That is an unfair punishment of everyone else.
Keep it protected for Wik only. Open for others.
As a semi-permanent solution, it is a very poor one. As a temporary solution (as in 24 hours or less), perhaps it could be useful, but only in extreme cases. Merely breaking the 3 revert rule is not sufficient.
Wow, "expressed their dislike of edit wars". THAT's going to make people behave! All of those "tsk tks"s and "now, now"s is accomplishing absouletly NOTHING. Things are getting worse because we can't get any consensus on WHAT to do because of people like you, who just want to smile and say "how awful", but not give anyone any authority to do anything, and instead attack those who DO do something..
RickK
Martin Harper martin@myreddice.freeserve.co.uk wrote: Well, let's see. You do something people don't like, and you get complaints. Wik does something people don't like, and Wik gets complaints. I'm not sure how you finesse that into a community desire for edit wars. Especially given that the overwhelming majority of the community have expressed their dislike of edit wars, just as you have.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
On the contrary, Martin, or User:Reddice is the one who has the authority and in the fullness of time will use it.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 11:43:15 -0800 (PST) To: martin@myreddice.co.uk, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Edit war policy meaningless
Wow, "expressed their dislike of edit wars". THAT's going to make people behave! All of those "tsk tks"s and "now, now"s is accomplishing absouletly NOTHING. Things are getting worse because we can't get any consensus on WHAT to do because of people like you, who just want to smile and say "how awful", but not give anyone any authority to do anything, and instead attack those who DO do something..
RickK
Martin Harper martin@myreddice.freeserve.co.uk wrote: Well, let's see. You do something people don't like, and you get complaints. Wik does something people don't like, and Wik gets complaints. I'm not sure how you finesse that into a community desire for edit wars. Especially given that the overwhelming majority of the community have expressed their dislike of edit wars, just as you have.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://mail.yahoo.com - More reliable, more storage, less spam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l