[WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

[Geoff Burling]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, geni wrote:

> On 2/12/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/12/06, Geoff Burling <geoff at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> > > To mention a related strategy, I wonder just how many veteran
> > > contributors have adopted the following tactic for prevailing in a
> > > content conflict:
> > >
> > > 1. Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other
> > > articles in need of attention.
> > > 2. Wait x number of weeks.
> > > 3. Revert opponent's edits while carefully leaving any later contributions
> > > intact.
> > > 4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as often as needed.
> > >
> > > Not to argue that this is the best way to deal with unreasonable
> > > partisans, but I can't be the only one who has done this.
> >
> > I have definitely thought of that strategy, but usually do this instead:
> >  1. Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many
> > other articles in need of attention.
> >  2. Wait x number of weeks.
> >  3. Forget all about it.

I admit to having executed that strategy also. Or its variant (following
on your steps 1-3 above):

4. Remember that I was concerned about a given article many months ago, &
out of curiosity have a look at it.
5. Discover one of the following:
a. My opponent has left Wikipedia for reasons unknown;
b. Another editor has gotten involved & either made my opponent see reason
or get hauled before the ArbCom for Not laying Nice;
c. Another editor has gotten involved & the article is changed in new ways.
> >
> > I have however had that strategy applied against me. It's very
> > frustrating, and boils down to some kind of siege warfare. Best to
> > find a different article.
> >
While that is probably the mature thing to do, I've found that there is
a psychological cost to constantly running away from fights. And that
leads to the impulsive decision to stay & get involved in some truly
stupid fights over content. I tell myself that I'm following my strategy --
even if I end up following Steve's -- in the hope my ego won't see it
as a retreat.
>
> oh it's nicer than:
>
> 1.Figure out your opponent's sleeping patturns
> 2.keep triggering edit wars with them just before they would otherwise
> log off for the night.
>
Ugh. Not something I've experienced, nor would I want to. I assume you
found a solution that did not involve violence by long-distance proxy.

Geoff