Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit:
On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 04:56, Anthere wrote:
But Erik, you are trying to have edit wars solution be based uniquely on
2 or 3 wik-like people, while there are many other very regular and
sometimes very respected contributors, who actually sometimes get into
edit war and reversion war themselves in the heat of the moment.
For Wik-like people, yes, a temporary ban may be a relief. Now, for
regular editors, I think it is a bad solution.
Suggestion :
What about a different policy depending on whether editors are listed as
"frequently involved in wars" people ?
For those "problematic users", for example, though not mandatory, any 3
reverts session could grant either softban or page protection or
slow-editing for 24 hours. Without the sysop doing the ban or the
protection or the slow edit having to justify himself or to argue he did
not commit sysop abuse.
However, none of these three actions would be mandatory. People could
still consider applying one or another, depending on the person.
Now, for people not listed as "problematic", only page protection could
be applied, eventually, after a certain number of reverts.
As for listing people problematic, I can just suggest a poll. If over
75% wikipedians agree a person is problematic, well, he may undergo
harder punishement than others.
This will allow people like Wik to be blocked after 3 reverts. So,
satisfy you and others.
This will allow regular users only to see only article protection
occuring for 3 reverts in most cases, so might satisfy all those against
the ban for 3 revert rule.
Sorry Anthere, but you are wrong. The majority of those who oppose the
three reverts policy are just those problematic users, so they probably
would not be satisfied with a policy that would still have their warring
thwarted.
Yes ?
I list below those opposed to this policy, that you say are mostly
problematic user
1. Ruhrjungy
2. Tannin
3. Anthony DiPierro
4. Taku
5. Wik
6. Martin:
7. Jamesday
8. James F.
9. Lirath Q. Pynnor
10. Seth Ilys 20:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. Angela
12. ugen64
13. User:Anthere.
I agree there are problematic users here. Not only though.
This should satisfy both those willing to stop editors
like Wik, and
those saying he is part of the project.
This will sent him the signal "better behavior" -> "lighter
punishment"
This would also create a new class of users: "Explicitly Untrusted Users".
Not a good idea IMHO. Might just drive users like lir to just regress into
multiple personality mode.
Very true.
But, I prefer proposing something controversial in an attempt to get
things going on, perhaps raise new ideas, rather than them proceeding
toward a solution I disagree with.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.