Let me try to follow your logic:
1. The post contains criticism of an admin. Therefore: 2. It has no merit, since by definition, criticism of an admin is either querulous or abusive and should be ignored.
Well done! Great thinking!
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 7/6/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "A. Nony Mouse"
I hereby propose an alternate policy:
Page-based 3RR. If the same
phrase is
reverted from a page three times in 24 hours,
then that PAGE shall be
locked for a week and all editors involved in
the reverts shall receive
a
12-hour block to cool off.
What a bad idea; it allows any editor to hold
pages hostage essentially
indefinitely, even if opposed by dozens of other
editors.
Jay.
Perhaps you could add your thoughts for improvement
instead of solely
criticism?
Perhaps your suggestions regarding criticism would be better directed to the alternately querulous and abusive individuals who don't seem to be able to do much on Wikipedia except get themselves blocked, taken before the Arbitration Committee, or banned, but regularly inundate this list with complaints about how nothing on Wikipedia is working because of the admin cliques who are constantly abusing their powers.
Oh, and here's my thought for improvement: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
If we kept the "standard" 3RR in addition to a new
page based revert
rule, one editor certainly could not hold pages
hostage. I didn't see
anything in the previous proposal that suggested
throwing away the old
(but actually pretty young) 3RR rule.
A page that is constantly kept locked by the actions of one individual against a huge consensus of other editors is one held hostage. See [[Apartheid]] for an example.
Jay.
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html