Dan Drake wrote:
Is there any more to be said about a sysop who is a
_participant_ in a
revert war..
The sysop in question's only participation in the edit war was to revert
our anon user's _11th_ and _12th_ insertion of the offending phrase. The
way you say that makes it sound like he war actively involved in the
POV-feuding.
and who blocks an adversary (legalistically, a proper
action
under 3-reverts) with no more explanation than a rude, spiteful comment
that _assumes_ the other knows all the rules?
The comment was a bit flip, but obviously a reference to the fact that
the user had ignored the two messages posted to his talk page, and
continued to revert and revert and revert, with no attempt at
conversation beyond a mischievous attack on Texture which certainly made
it seem to ME that he was no newbie.
Serious question: what would you have done? This anon user was clearly
displaying his intent to continually revert an article, without ever
discussing it, and ignore all attempts to converse with him on the
issue. He was showing signs of being a troll rather than an honest
newbie. As far as I can see, there's only 3 possibilities:
1) Give up, let him have the Ronald Reagan article to write in his POV
2) Protect the article
3) Block him
Can you think of another alternative? Or do you just think that #2 is
the better of the options?
Cheers!
David...