[WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!

Wed Jun 2 01:30:15 UTC 2004

Erik Moeller wrote:

>Poor,-
>  
>
>>According to my reading of the edit history of [[Augusto Pinochet]],
>>both 172 and VV engaged in a "more than 3 times" reversion war.
>>    
>>
>
>The edit war is mostly about whether the intro should state that the 1973  
>coup was "US backed", with some (primarily 172) arguing that this is an  
>indisputable fact, and others (primarily VV) holding that it is  
>controversial and therefore needs to be written in NPOV "many believe"  
>style. Majority opinion is on 172's side, and Encarta also uses the  
>"United States backed" phrase.
>
>I initially agreed with VV that some compromise was needed, but last week  
>new evidence was revealed in the form of a transcript of a conversation  
>between Kissinger and Nixon, shortly after the coup, in which Kissinger  
>flat-out stated "We helped them" and Nixon responded "That's right". In my  
>opinion, in combination with the sum of the evidence (including a CIA memo  
>which states that Allende should be overthrown with a coup, and that the  
>American hand should be "well hidden"), this justifies the phrase "United  
>States backed". VV sees no reason to change his position.
>
>172 has long proposed a compromise, namely a footnote behind the "United  
>States backed" to clarify what it means, but VV has ignored that  
>compromise. I have worked with him on another compromise intro with the  
>"many believe" phrase, but I feel this is no longer adequate in light of  
>the new evidence.
>
>Both 172 and VV have edit warred repeatedly on the article in violation of  
>policy. In addition, there have been a number of personal attacks.
>
>I'm against banning either of them from Wikipedia as a whole, but a 3  
>month ban from editing [[Augusto Pinochet]] may be a good idea. The sad  
>result of these edit wars is that the article has been protected for much  
>of its lifespan, which is obviously completely against the spirit of a  
>wiki.
>
>I think that a quickpoll was held on the matter when quickpolls for three- 
>revert violations were still in effect. The result was a vote for banning  
>VV but not for banning 172. This is one of the reasons people, including  
>myself, have become skeptical about the procedure: it ends up as a  
>popularity contest. If we have a three revert rule, everyone should have  
>to respect it.
>  
>
I've looked at the matter and I agree with Erik on this.  I've never 
been keen about the 3-revert rule because it accomplishes nothing.  A 
50-revert rule would do no better.  The state of an article when the 
warriors have reache the threshold might just as well be determined by a 
toss of a coin.  After each has had his three reverts they wait until 
the next day and have three new reverts each; that accomplishes nothing 
either. 

The side which provides reference and sources in an argument should be 
given preference.  Opposition to those sources is valid, but that too 
needs some basis in reality.  It is not enough to oppose something 
because it would cause embarassment to one's favoured side.  NPOV is 
best attained when we can accept substantiated information contrary to 
our own point of view.  It makes an article much easier to read than one 
sprinkled with weasel words..

Ec