On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:59:43 -0500, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry(a)xigenics.net> wrote:
There are many pages which are "owned" now
by small cabals of editors,
because they can revert away anyone who disagrees with them. In the
spirit of "no formalized page ownership" this should be addressed. My
proposal is tighten the revert rule to be content based, that is three
reverts of particular content in a day is the limit, in each direction,
and that after that people making further reverts are blocked. Then
create categories for RFC and reverting, requiring that someone
reverting an article place the article in one of the categories based
on the reason for the revert. This isn't that much more work, and will
automatically create a tracking system which is better than searching
edit summaries and better than relying on RFC. The RFC process as is
would remain in place as a way of giving a more detailed explanation of
the source of the dispute. I feel the more "automatic" we make the
process of "raising a red flag" on an article, the more it will be done
rather than edit warring it out.
Commitment to an open process of consensus means, I think, that we
examine where that process is not yet acceptable to people who are
able, energetic and knowledgeable, and who we want as contributors.
I don't see how your proposals are going to help. In some cases, yes,
a new person can shed a new light on the matter and find a compromise.
But in cases where there is, as you write, a "cabal" "owning" the
page, getting more people in will only make the discussion being
fought louder, not the solution being brought nearer. There is
currently no way to decide what shape a page should have if there is
no consensus. As long as we do not have that, bringing in more people
will only cause the same arguments to be made over and over again.
Andre Engels