[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"
Dan Drake
dd at dandrake.com
Thu Jun 24 16:16:50 UTC 2004
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:25:39 UTC, Stormie
<wikien-l-RB5ZwyA4Hgu1Z/+hSey0Gg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Dan Drake wrote:
> > Is there any more to be said about a sysop who is a _participant_ in a
> > revert war..
>
> The sysop in question's only participation in the edit war was to revert
> our anon user's _11th_ and _12th_ insertion of the offending phrase. The
> way you say that makes it sound like he war actively involved in the
> POV-feuding.
Looks as if I didn't read the history with enough care. My bad. I
withdraw the "participant" remark -- mostly. See below.
>
> > and who blocks an adversary (legalistically, a proper action
> > under 3-reverts) with no more explanation than a rude, spiteful comment
> > that _assumes_ the other knows all the rules?
>
> The comment was a bit flip, but obviously a reference to the fact that
> the user had ignored the two messages posted to his talk page,
A bit flip? It assumes that the user knows and is willfully violating
3-reverts. The first message you refer to merely told him to stop making
his changes because Texture considered them wrong, or rather, nonsense.
The second, from Oberiko, finished with "I will ban you if you add your
currently POV edit into the text again." Can you find where that
mentions the *valid* reason for banning him? I mean, the 3-revert rule.
Offending a sysop is not supposed to be valid reason for banning --
particularly if the sysop has taken part in the revert war, however
innocently and properly (at least, so I read a whole lot of the discussion
that has taken place here in the last couple of months).
The first part of Oberiko's message is good, I agree. A pity he couldn't
stick to the point, and explain that what 24.4 did was more than just bad
manners and non-cooperation -- how quickly do we ban people for bad
manners and misbehavior? does anybody remember 72 and Wik??? -- it's a
specific action violating a specific (though widely disliked) policy that
justifies immediate, unilateral banning.
and
> continued to revert and revert and revert, with no attempt at
> conversation beyond a mischievous attack on Texture which certainly made
> it seem to ME that he was no newbie.
By mischievous attack, I assume you mean calling Texture a newbie. Pretty
funny, in a way, if done by a newbie; seriously out of place if he knows
anything of the facts, or if he troubles to examine publicly available
data before popping off. But it's not an unbelievable error in a newbie
who has just been accused of vandalism and considers himself innocent of
it. (BTW I think that in calling it vandalism Texture is dead wrong -- a
highly unusual condition, but apparently nobody is perfect.)
What's the point of this ramble? That his actions don't conclusively
prove that he's a knowledgeable vandal; not even to the extent of
overriding "assume good faith [and ignorance]" so that one would be
obliged NOT to mention the 3-revert rule.
>
> Serious question: what would you have done?
Easy: Refer him to the three-revert rule. By the way, if that was the
11th revert (taking your word for it, not counting), then where the hell
was everybody else? Why did nobody complain on the fourth through tenth
reverts? Here we have several people, not just Oberiko, deciding not to
take the rule seriously, preferring rather to engage in edit wars.
And one could do other things, like starting out on his Talk page with
less hostility and assumption of bad faith. And perhaps making similar
changes in the approach to writing edit summaries. (Followers of Benjamin
Franklin are referred to the last line of this posting.)
>... He was showing signs of being a troll rather than an honest
> newbie.
You can interpret it that way. Another can interpret it the opposite way.
Which approach is more likely to lead to progress in Wikipedia, and which
is asking for another long, more or less acrimonious debate on WikiEn-l?
> As far as I can see, there's only 3 possibilities:
>
> 1) Give up, let him have the Ronald Reagan article to write in his POV
> 2) Protect the article
> 3) Block him
>
> Can you think of another alternative? Or do you just think that #2 is
> the better of the options?
Well, I've given some. Lots more, and better ones, have appeared in this
list recently. Alas, most of them need to be applied early on. Once the
hole has been dug, there may be no good way of climbing out -- I wouldn't
think of mentioning the Middle East here -- and the unsatisfactory
possibilities seem to be,
1a) Three-revert warning, even though one thinks this guy is a troll and
is laughing at one -- hideous fate, since one cares so much for the
opinions of trolls and vandals; together with
1b) User-Talk messages and Edit summaries strongly urging use of the Talk
page and stressing that one must learn not to get into edit wars, and
couched in the most polite and least hostile terms available; non-flaming
at this point may require outside assistance. Followed, if need be, by
2) If these are ignored, then a ban or protection, at discretion of sysop,
who of course will consult with one or more peers before doing anything
more than a quick ban for a simple 3-revert violation.
One good thing about giving other people good advice: It raises the
standard I'll have to hold myself to, the next time I'm tempted to a
shoving match.
Cheers,
Dan Drake
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list