[WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!

Tue Jun 1 21:57:00 UTC 2004

Poor,-
> According to my reading of the edit history of [[Augusto Pinochet]],
> both 172 and VV engaged in a "more than 3 times" reversion war.

The edit war is mostly about whether the intro should state that the 1973  
coup was "US backed", with some (primarily 172) arguing that this is an  
indisputable fact, and others (primarily VV) holding that it is  
controversial and therefore needs to be written in NPOV "many believe"  
style. Majority opinion is on 172's side, and Encarta also uses the  
"United States backed" phrase.

I initially agreed with VV that some compromise was needed, but last week  
new evidence was revealed in the form of a transcript of a conversation  
between Kissinger and Nixon, shortly after the coup, in which Kissinger  
flat-out stated "We helped them" and Nixon responded "That's right". In my  
opinion, in combination with the sum of the evidence (including a CIA memo  
which states that Allende should be overthrown with a coup, and that the  
American hand should be "well hidden"), this justifies the phrase "United  
States backed". VV sees no reason to change his position.

172 has long proposed a compromise, namely a footnote behind the "United  
States backed" to clarify what it means, but VV has ignored that  
compromise. I have worked with him on another compromise intro with the  
"many believe" phrase, but I feel this is no longer adequate in light of  
the new evidence.

Both 172 and VV have edit warred repeatedly on the article in violation of  
policy. In addition, there have been a number of personal attacks.

I'm against banning either of them from Wikipedia as a whole, but a 3  
month ban from editing [[Augusto Pinochet]] may be a good idea. The sad  
result of these edit wars is that the article has been protected for much  
of its lifespan, which is obviously completely against the spirit of a  
wiki.

I think that a quickpoll was held on the matter when quickpolls for three- 
revert violations were still in effect. The result was a vote for banning  
VV but not for banning 172. This is one of the reasons people, including  
myself, have become skeptical about the procedure: it ends up as a  
popularity contest. If we have a three revert rule, everyone should have  
to respect it.

Regards,

Erik