[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia broken

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day David,

> But that's exactly my point. _What the policy says_ is (ie 'if this
> happens, in this way, then this is the consequence') _all_ that achieved
> consensus (and therefore all the is enforceable) - anything above and
> beyond that is not endorsed by the community (or, in the case of
> decrees, not endorsed by Jimbo unless he subsequently says so) and
> therefore is not policy. Taking your example, if there was community
> consensus to extending the 3RR to 25 hours then it would be amended as such.

1) Policy is descriptive --- it *describes* what we already do, it
    attempts to document consensus.  When we look to policy, it's because
    we're not sure what to do or, unfortunately rather commonly, because
    we want a bat to hit our opponents with and can't come up with a
    logical argument (see also "wikilawyering").  As a natural
    consequence, what policy says necessarily lags behind what we
    actually do --- as someone wise, or possibly Raul654, said, "do what
    needs to be done, and eventually someone will rewrite policy to
    suit".  Or words to that effect.  There will always be some activity
    on the edges where, if a bloke confines his understanding to policy
    (rather than to *Wikipedia*), he'll always be uncertain about what's
    happening.

2) The 3RR is a good example.  Someone who reverts four times in 25
    hours (or, indeed, 24 hours and 30 seconds) is no different from
    someone who reverts four times in 23 hours (or 23 hours and 59
    minutes 30 seconds).  They're all edit warriors, and those who happen
    to wait an extra minute for "their revert limit" to reset itself are
    doing what's called "gaming the 3RR" or, bluntly, being dicks (that's
    WP:DICK, which process wonks always seem to want to get rid of).

    The only reason we say "three reverts in 24 hours" is because you
    have to draw a line, however fuzzy, somewhere.  You can't accuse
    someone of edit warring who made three reverts in nine months, nor
    can you take someone who makes twelve reverts in an hour and say
    they're not really warring, it's just healthy boyish aggression.  3RR
    gives a basic definition.  But at the edges ... if I make four
    reverts in 25 hours, I'm as bad as someone who does it in 24.  Now,
    what if I make three reverts every day for two weeks?  Is my
    behaviour appropriate?  Am I entitled to whine about my inevitable
    block, because "process says I have to revert four times a day before
    you can block me!"?  Bollocks, I am.

    People are blocked all the time for gaming the 3RR.  The 3RR
    description itself says "this is not an entitlement".  3RR is about
    discouraging and, in some cases, ending revert wars.  I suggest
    unblocking someone I (or any other sensible admin) blocked for four
    reverts in 25 hours would be a very, very silly thing to do.




-- 
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/304 - Release Date: 7/04/2006