"Good" Edit Warriors, was Re: [WikiEN-l] The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed

[Fred Bauder]

Edit warring is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. There is some
difficulty in getting the Arbitration Committee to severely sanction "good"
edit warriors, but some of us keep trying. A dedicated edit warrior will
return over and over again to us and eventually the whole Committee goes
along (or the user learns other ways to resolve disputes besides endless
reverting).

Fred

> From: Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:57:16 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The 3RR policy should not always be blindly  followed
> 
> At 03:17 PM 1/17/2005 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
>> Maybe it would be a good idea to form a team of "no original research"
>> checkers who have the right to violate 3RR, and on whom any editor
>> could call for help in the case of a revert war triggered by an editor
>> adding unreferenced claims. The job of this team would be to ask for a
>> reference and then to determine whether the reference offered was a
>> reputable one. If not, the team would have the right to keep reverting
>> until the POV pusher got fed up.
> 
> Since the POV pusher is someone who is repeatedly, consistently and with
> malice aforethought inserting material that goes against Wikipedia policy,
> I think it would be best to expedite the work of ArbCom so that the
> POV-pusher can simply be banned rather than setting up a group of official
> edit warriors whose job is to try out-pushing him on his own terms. I
> believe edit wars would be just as troublesome when they're officially
> sanctioned as when they aren't.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>