Right, well then whats needed is a kind of "huddle"
or "quick conference" for deciding to ban "POV
vandals," ie. 'people who are for one reason or
another refusing to comply with NPOV and Civility.'
(Part of being "civil" is also talking and discussing,
right?)
If they also violated NoInsults, there woundnt need to
be any discussion at all before they would be blocked,
would there? So theres a good line there to work with.
S
--- David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
S.Vertigo (sewev(a)yahoo.com) [040808 05:43]:
How about just protecting them, use a very
condensed
version of the {{protected}} banner, (its just
too
much text and graphics people) and make people
work on
a proxy draft instead?
Hasn't worked - the anons don't talk, they just
revert. Protecting one page
for a month did nothing - they just came back when
it was unprotected and
started over.
Nationalist POV pushing is becoming a real problem
on Wikipedia.
Particularly in cases where it appears
semi-official, as with these cases
and with User:Levzur on Georgia-related articles. I
suspect a series of AC
rulings as we go isn't really the best way to
approach the problem. What
can we do abouthis sort of thing? Gdansk/Danzig is
just the tip of it.
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail