And then there's people who simply don't
discuss if the page is
protected on their preferred version. Quite problematic if you've got
two of those. WHat do you protect it on then?
--Mgm
On 6/22/05, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. I
think a lot of edit wars
and revert wars could be stopped if pages were more quickly protected
and people were actually forced to try and work it out on talk
beforehand.
The negative aspect -- that the page was being prevented from other,
legitimate edits -- is indeed quite negative, but no less so than if
it is in the middle of edit wars, which make preserving newly added
content near impossible.
Is there a page for requesting protection? If there was some easy way
to do it, I'd do it all the time. I'd much rather discuss
disagreements on talk pages than change the articles, but most anons
and POV pushers seem unwilling to do that unless forced.
FF
On 6/22/05, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
> > For how long would these individual
article blocks remain?
>
> Just like current user blocks, the duration can be set by the
> blocker/admin. I would assume that a 24 hour block for a 3RR violation
> could for just the article in question, not for the entire Wikipedia.
I fail to see the advantage then; they would likely just move on to
revert-warring on some other article, and then return to the original
after 24 hours.
The advantage is that it gives the antisocial more rope to hang
themselves with, while simultaneously taking a lot of the sting out of
being blocked, for those who aren't simply on Wikipedia to push an
agenda. Yes, the battlefields may shift occasionally, but the process of
building a case for arbitration against serious offenders can move much
more rapidly. Then you won't have to wait as impatiently to get a
sanction that lasts longer than 24 hours, in situations where this
proves necessary.
Back in the day when the three-revert rule was only a guideline, I
brought an arbitration case against three of the most prolific revert
warriors of the time. I think the arbitrators found the evidence
persuasive in part because I could point to a long list of pages that
had to be protected due to their revert wars. This is straightforward
and a lot easier to deal with than wading through diffs to figure out
who said what personal attack to whom. The same principle would apply to
somebody who gets blocked from 10 different articles on closely related
topics in short succession. With this kind of track record established,
I'm confident that arbitration would quickly consider hearing such a case.
--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l