[WikiEN-l] 172

[Poor, Edmund W]

Geoff Burling wrote:

> 172 asserts something that is challenged, he repeats 
> his reasons, he ignores any kind of rational input 
> from the other party (e.g., authorities quoted, logical 
> arguments, etc.), he starts getting nasty, & finally 
> threatens to leave -- but stays.

I agree with Geoff: this is a fairly accurate summary of 
Abe (172)'s habits. And this bolsters my argument that 
some sort of action (like a ban) must be taken.

At the risk of turning this into something personal, I would like to
point out some differences between Abe and me. 

When challenged on NPOV, I nearly always simply back off. I assume good
faith, first of all, so if someone says I'm making biased edits I figure
they have the advantage of taking a fresh look. Secondly, I hardly ever
"revert a reversion". That leads to edit wars, and I prefer to nip these
in the bud; I don't think I've ever used up my 3x/day quota an ANY
article, and I doubt that I've "reverted a reversion" more than about
1x/month on ALL articles put together.

On this, I think I set a pretty good example. (Some contributors, like
Mav, set an even better example by avoidng contentious subjects
altogther. I'm more of a maverick :-) so I edit a bit more boldly.

I haven't looked at the [[Augusto Pinochet]] article since Friday, so I
don't know if I "got what I wanted", as Abe (172) said. I'm hoping that
the article can (a) stay unlocked and (b) satisfy ALL contributors that
it's accurate and unbiased. If Abe would prefer to stay, while adhering
to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I'd rather have that than have him leave --
but if he's going to engage in "reversion wars" to the extent that other
contributors begin to think of him as a bully, then some time off might
serve the project better.

Ed Poor