There seems to be a defacto policy of reverting anything Susan Mason or
Dietary Fiber does without engaging in dialog with them. They have been
given the status of trolls (based on past behavior allegedly as the user
Lir). The problem is that their behavior has gradually improved and you now
see the dark side of what was once a reasonable effort to deal with a
troublesome user. I was particularly unimpressed by the alleged trolling in
the James I article, Dietary Fiber's article seems a bit better than the
other. And in fact in the idiolatry article (although it is terribly
complicated) they seem to be more on the side of the angels than their
opponent.
I suspect their status as trolls needs to be reconsidered. However they may
be banned at this time. I seem to have lost track of their exact status. Oh
now I remember, they would be if they were not AOL.
Anyway, with such low status, it is considered ok to revert their edits
without considering their content or engaging in dialog with them. Or do I
have it wrong?
Fred
From: cprompt <cprompt(a)tmbg.org>
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 01:03:36 -0400
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Susan Mason
I'd also like to add that I have had no problems with Susan Mason or
Dietary Fiber on the two articles I was watching, that is, "James I of
England" and "History of Soviet Union". They were called trolls, they
were told to "go get a history book", and they were told repeatedly that
their views are wrong. The facts that I did check were correct, and
Susan Mason offered to cooperate. When someone said that "regime"
explains the Soviet Union better than "government", Susan Mason referred
to a dictionary entry, and I noticed that other online dictionaries both
say that regime means "the government in power". I told those who had
complaints against Susan Mason that they could make their case stronger
by outlining which facts and sentences Susan Mason was using were
incorrect. Then they could (theoretically) make a compromise, after
doing some fact-checking. Instead, I was told that Susan Mason is lying
and only pretends to cooperate, and that I was well-meaning but naive.
Any posts by Susan Mason were reverted immediately. See archived talk
page for History of Soviet Union, and my talk page.
--cprompt
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l