Editing Encyc:Community portal/Archive 1 (section)

===What do we do about edit wars?===
I'm not sure what to say here. We've already had edit wars, and Emperor apparently hopes to take a hands-off approach toward blocks. Any ideas? [[User:One|One]] 01:04, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

We haven't really had edit wars.  At worst, we have reverted once per day.  That's not really an edit war.  Ultimately some kind of an agreement has been reached.  Blocking should be reserved for people who are trying to destroy the site, not for people who want to have their opinions heard.  Every place I have managed I have said that I will only ban people who are trying to ruin the site.  You DO need to ban them.  You should NEVER ban people who are trying to make the place better, no matter how misguided they might be.  Unless of course you are trying to make it an exclusive club.  Sadly, [[Jimbo Wales]] didn't set sensible rules when he started and hence Wikipedia was ruined when they ended up overdoing it.  There's nothing wrong with banning vandals, or people who are trying to ruin the place.  There is something wrong with banning people who are trying to help to make the site better.  Sadly, Wikipedia Review in many ways has gone down the same path.  There was nothing wrong with banning [[Malber]] and [[Grace Note]].  It probably would have been reasonable to have banned [[David Gerard]] and [[Snowspinner]], although we didn't.  We had to ban [[Amorrow]] for legal reasons.  But a number of the bans we made we really shouldn't have made.  Loyal trusted and well loved users were banned, which really wrecked the place.  Of course, it still has a reason for being, but it is being run very very badly.  Somey said that he would fix all of those problems but ultimately he made it worse. I hope that Emperor doesn't go down the same path.  Other than Grawp's silly renaming (I note that you can no longer move articles) there has been no reason to ban anyone here really. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 14:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:Actually Grawp's not even blocked anymore.  No one is.  I guess if things get really out of hand I can start swinging the banhammer, but even then I think the years-long indef. bans of Wikipedia are too draconian.  Besides, tracking down sockpuppets and block evaders seems like a big headache. [[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 18:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::What I think that Wikipedia should have done is to ban people outright.  No "banned for 1 day" nonsense - just ban them or don't ban them.  If you ban them for a while, then think that they deserve another chance, or they write to apologise, then unban them.  Bans should only ever be for when they are trying to wreck the project.  If someone who was trying to wreck the project and was banned for it comes on under a new username and isn't trying to wreck the project, it is utterly stupid to ban them.  The whole concept of [[sock puppet]]ry is stupid.  It is one thing to punish people for using 2 accounts at once to rig votes and win edit wars - I agree with that.  But banning people for being suspected of being someone else who was banned, when the new person isn't doing anything wrong is utterly, utterly stupid.  They are almost always guesses anyway, and they get it wrong more often than they get it right.  What is the point?  It just creates a nasty air about it.  I am sure that that was not Jimbo's aim when he started it.  [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 11:03, 31 August 2008 (EDT)