[WikiEN-l] Edit war policy meaningless

Sat Mar 13 19:02:50 UTC 2004

Erik asked:

> What exactly is page protection going to accomplish [...] ?

Slight correction: protection on the version that problem user X doesn't like. It's going to 
accomplish the important task of annoying people who engage in excessive reversions, 
and pleasing people who don't engage in excessive reversions. I believe that these are 
called a "stick" and "carrot", respectively.

> [the 24hr ban] policy has been sabotaged for nonsensical reasons

If by "sabotage" you mean that I and eleven other people have voted against a policy 
that you support, and by "nonsensical reasons" you mean "reasons that Erik disagrees 
with", then I should remind you that disagreeing with your good self is not yet a crime. 
We can discuss matters civilly, or we can start accusing each other of sabotage. 
Experience suggests that the former tends to be more productive over the long term.

> If people like Wik can engage in edit wars without serious consequences,  
> and I on the other hand am attacked for doing what I can to intervene [...], then it
>  is clear that the Wikipedia community as a whole *wants* edit wars to happen.

Well, let's see. You do something people don't like, and you get complaints. Wik does 
something people don't like, and Wik gets complaints. I'm not sure how you finesse that 
into a community desire for edit wars. Especially given that the overwhelming majority 
of the community have expressed their dislike of edit wars, just as you have.

If you don't like complaints, I humbly suggest that you don't do things that cause people 
to complain. Those people who complain about certain of your actions are most likely 
doing so because they do not like certain of your actions, logically enough.

> I protected the page which Wik had blanked repeatedly and - gasp - edited it
> afterwards

Yes, it seems you protected [[McFly]], and reverted it to the version that Wik didn't like. 
If only there was some sort of suggested policy to allow for that! If there was such a 
suggestion, it would probably have been suggested by some good-looking individual 
such as myself, perhaps on [[wikipedia talk:revert]], and mentioned a few days ago on 
this mailing list.

> If I sound angry, that's because I am.

If I sound like I have a headache and a cold, that's because I have. But that probably 
doesn't come across so well over the internet.

Many people are annoyed at some of the problems Wikipedia currently has, and that's 
perfectly understandable. If you must get angry, get angry with the problems, not with 
the community as a whole. We all have the same goal here, we just differ as to the best 
route to it.

-Martin