Right, well then whats needed is a kind of "huddle" or "quick conference" for deciding to ban "POV vandals," ie. 'people who are for one reason or another refusing to comply with NPOV and Civility.' (Part of being "civil" is also talking and discussing, right?)
If they also violated NoInsults, there woundnt need to be any discussion at all before they would be blocked, would there? So theres a good line there to work with.
S
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
S.Vertigo (sewev@yahoo.com) [040808 05:43]:
How about just protecting them, use a very
condensed
version of the {{protected}} banner, (its just too much text and graphics people) and make people
work on
a proxy draft instead?
Hasn't worked - the anons don't talk, they just revert. Protecting one page for a month did nothing - they just came back when it was unprotected and started over.
Nationalist POV pushing is becoming a real problem on Wikipedia. Particularly in cases where it appears semi-official, as with these cases and with User:Levzur on Georgia-related articles. I suspect a series of AC rulings as we go isn't really the best way to approach the problem. What can we do abouthis sort of thing? Gdansk/Danzig is just the tip of it.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail