[WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

[Jon]

geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:  On 2/12/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 2/12/06, Geoff Burling 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.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
  
I preferred:
   
  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. See that other editors have restored what I was trying to do (because I was right all along:) )and that I needn't do a thing.
   
  :)
   
  The only downside is where you are up against those trying to make a point rather than make a good, well-referenced article, when you end up with:
   
  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. See that other editors have removed all the references from the bit you added (so that it looks like it's entirely unsupported), added lots of dubious unreferenced information, and added some stuff you can't even understand (let alone consider whether you agree with it or not).
   
  Of course, in that instance, the article's deteriorating anyway, and you're unlikely to stop the rot.
   
  Jon (now over at Wikibooks, which seems far calmer, and where it is easier to get things done)

		
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.