[WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list

[Ron Ritzman]

On 2/22/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:

> But one can not legitimately "defend" an article against a newbie being
> bold in a good faith effort to fix an article.

But what if previous consensus has determined that it "ain't broke"?

> A newbie being bold is
> not, in and of itself, a violation of any policy.

No it's not. And if the newbie is being whacked by an admin acting as
the article's pit bull after a bold or two then yes, the admin himself
should be whacked.

This should never happen...

bold/revert/bold/whack

However, this is what we see in too many of these cases...

bold/revert/bold/revert/dick/whack

> Quite the contrary, we
> encourage it. If a change to an article does not violate policy but is
> reverted, and then the change stonewalled on the talk page, the
> "defender" is violating policy ([[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]]),

And this can be responded too by the dispute resolution procedures.
This is mentioned in WP:OWN. If the "newbie editor" responds with
"dickery" then whether or not he's right or wrong he will get whacked,
not for the bold but for the dickery and I don't believe you can argue
that he was goaded into being a dick (uncivil, personal attacks etc.)
or somehow magically made to act like a dick by the article's "gang".