[WikiEN-l] Re: Edit war policy meaningless

[Anthere]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit:
> On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 04:56, Anthere wrote:
> 
> But Erik, you are trying to have edit wars solution be based uniquely on 
> 2 or 3 wik-like people, while there are many other very regular and 
> sometimes very respected contributors, who actually sometimes get into 
> edit war and reversion war themselves in the heat of the moment.
> 
> For Wik-like people, yes, a temporary ban may be a relief. Now, for 
> regular editors, I think it is a bad solution.
> 
> Suggestion :
> What about a different policy depending on whether editors are listed as 
> "frequently involved in wars" people ?
> 
> For those "problematic users", for example, though not mandatory, any 3 
> reverts session could grant either softban or page protection or 
> slow-editing for 24 hours. Without the sysop doing the ban or the 
> protection or the slow edit having to justify himself or to argue he did 
> not commit sysop abuse.
> 
> However, none of these three actions would be mandatory. People could 
> still consider applying one or another, depending on the person.
> 
> Now, for people not listed as "problematic", only page protection could 
> be applied, eventually, after a certain number of reverts.
> 
> As for listing people problematic, I can just suggest a poll. If over 
> 75% wikipedians agree a person is problematic, well, he may undergo 
> harder punishement than others.
> 
> This will allow people like Wik to be blocked after 3 reverts. So, 
> satisfy you and others.
> This will allow regular users only to see only article protection 
> occuring for 3 reverts in most cases, so might satisfy all those against 
> the ban for 3 revert rule.
> 
> Sorry Anthere, but you are wrong. The majority of those who oppose the
> three reverts policy are just those problematic users, so they probably
> would not be satisfied with a policy that would still have their warring
> thwarted.

Yes ?
I list below those opposed to this policy, that you say are mostly 
problematic user

    1. Ruhrjungy
    2. Tannin
    3. Anthony DiPierro
    4. Taku
    5. Wik
    6. Martin:
    7. Jamesday
    8. James F.
    9. Lirath Q. Pynnor
   10. Seth Ilys 20:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   11. Angela
   12. ugen64
   13. User:Anthere.

I agree there are problematic users here. Not only though.

> This should satisfy both those willing to stop editors like Wik, and 
> those saying he is part of the project.
> This will sent him the signal "better behavior" -> "lighter punishment"
> 
> This would also create a new class of users: "Explicitly Untrusted Users".
> Not a good idea IMHO. Might just drive users like lir to just regress into
> multiple personality mode.

Very true.
But, I prefer proposing something controversial in an attempt to get 
things going on, perhaps raise new ideas, rather than them proceeding 
toward a solution I disagree with.

> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.