On Nov 15, 2007 4:10 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No, it remains the case that the way not to get blocked for edit-warring is not to edit-war.
Play the long game. Leave the ardent edit warrior to their own devices.
In effective overturning something after 6 months is near impossible.
Come back in due course. Most editors only stay active six to eighteen months. We're building an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
The rational thing to do then becomes to speed up the burnout. Ignoring the normal decision making process and sooner or latter you will run into someone prepared to do likewise. I could have made the spoiler issue end very differently with less than half a dozen users.
-- geni
It's not "could have made". The issue is not settled until either:
* A working "actual agreement" consensus is achieved on-wiki, or...
* Everyone who is pro-spoiler-warnings and able to fight the multilevel policy fight (such as a few of us here) choses explicitly rather than implicity to simply let it go.
The email that started this posed the question falsely, by assuming that it was settled. The definition of consensus that includes "but nobody who can make a fight for it stick has gone after the problem... yet" is a dangerous presumption.
It's particularly dangerous because it leads to people thinking that they have the actual working agreement consensus and can start taking extraordinary measures against those seen as troublemakers against that false consensus.