mattheww wrote:
Zoe wrote:
mattheww wrote:
Then he was under a misconception. He did not have to deal with them.
So we just let the obnoxious ones run roughshod over all of the work and ignore their ridiculous changes?
No. We fix them when we have the energy to do so. When we get tired, we trust that others will pick up the slack, rather than assuming that the only solution is to ban.
We also come back when our energy returns and fix the last obnoxious edit. By this time, according to Jimbo's theory (which I find reasonable), the obnoxious person is likely to have gone home. If we are unable to keep with them (even after this wait), however, then we can ask for help from the militia, say on the mailing list.
Initially, of course, we should try to talk to the obnoxious person and convince them to become good Wikipedians like the rest of us. But the above is about what to do after we've given up on that; there is still the ability to "ignore and revert" before banning is needed.
I do think that mattheww put it a bit glibly as "He did not have to deal with them.". He did not have to attempt to work things out with them once they had clearly demonstrated that they wouldn't act in good faith. He still had to revert their edits, but that is quick.
-- Toby