[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"

[Dan Drake]

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