[WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind
wikilegal at inbox.org
Mon Feb 13 13:15:21 UTC 2006
On 2/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> 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 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.
> > Steve
> 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.
Best one I've seen is:
1) Talk to a fellow admin about it on IRC.
3) Have the fellow admin protect.
Happened quite often before the introduction of three revert rule
enforcement. Now colluding pairs can simply team up directly.
More information about the WikiEN-l