On 12/13/05, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer(a)wordzen.net> wrote: The 3RR was one of those ideas that may have seemed good at the time (I supported the proposal). In practice it seems to be used for two bad purposes: * to justify the notion that making up to three reverts per day is a normal mode of editing * to bait hotheads and get them into trouble

On 12/13/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: are That is more a symptom of other problems, though (and I say this as someone who doesn't support the 3RR as a rule but only a guideline). There needs to be better mechanisms for dispute resolution: somewhere people can turn to when they disagree over an article and using the talk page is not resolving the problem; somewhere where there are established precedents for dealing with certain types of situations that come up over and over again; somewhere that the wise citizens of Wikipedia occassionally hang out in and can diffuse the situations by pointing to policies and precedents. This would make both revert wars and the 3RR unnecessary. I see the proper place for this as the RfC page. But the RfC page is not utilized very well. But then again, maybe I'm overoptimistic as to how easy these things are to resolve. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I can remember the state of affairs. There were more reverts, bringing more attention to the articles, and forcing things to be resolved more quickly.

On 12/14/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: >Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>>I can remember the state of affairs. There were more reverts, >>bringing more attention to the articles, and forcing things to be >>resolved more quickly.

>Yeah, that worked well on Mr-Natural-Health, while the AC case oozed >through. Oh, wait.

As opposed to today, when the Arb Com is never needed to resolve anything?

On 12/14/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: >Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>>I can remember the state of affairs. There were more reverts, >>bringing more attention to the articles, and forcing things to be >>resolved more quickly.

>Yeah, that worked well on Mr-Natural-Health, while the AC case oozed >through. Oh, wait.

Mr-Natural-Health did tend to stay within the three revert rule.

David Gerard wrote: > Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>> I can remember the state of affairs. There were more reverts, >> bringing more attention to the articles, and forcing things to be >> resolved more quickly.

> Yeah, that worked well on Mr-Natural-Health, while the AC case oozed > through. Oh, wait.

There was more to that case than newbie exuberance.

Jtkiefer wrote: In my experience, this is the case with just about any enforcement policy. When you judge that someone has violated policy, they conclude that you are "involved" and therefore should not be the one to enforce the policy. The implicit logic is that any administrator who familiarized him or her self with the case and chose to act in an administrative function because the situation called for it is now "involved". That may be true by definition, but it doesn't imply conflict of interest. Yet a lot of people -- including other administrators, in my direct experience -- have been subliminally persuaded by this faulty reasoning. Ryan

From: Jtkiefer <jtkiefer(a)wordzen.net>

> Yes it happens with quite a few policies most recently NPOV but 3RR is > something that's not just like other policies where occasionally > issues pop up but 3RR at the fundamental level seems to be flawed by > the fact that it is misused by those who wish to gain an upper edge in > content disputes and administrators who try to enforce it have to end > up digging through edit warring and conflicts many times and much of > the time end up being villified for it even more than administrators > normally are for doing their jobs... and coming from someone who gets > threats and personal attacks against him quite a bit that's saying a > lot. Enforcing 3RR has become an everyday battle. ~~~~

The alternative is (and was) worse.

You're right, of course. Part of the job of being in administration is that you have to deal with unreasonable people, and this is certainly no less true on Wikipedia. It's probably best to just sigh and move on rather than take the trollish actions personally.

Besides, revoking 3RR because some people use it as an excuse for citations of "administrator abuse" by "rouge admins" isn't going to be a solution, because those people will complain no matter what. 3RR is just the excuse they use.