Dante Alighieri blocked Jalnet 2 and me for a day, because we both violated the 3 revert rule. There is nothing I can do about it, but I do want to point out (and for now, this is the only available venue) that I think this is an example of a frivolous application of the rule. I know that the rule involves 3 reverts to a person, but in this case the multiple reverts were over several different edits (in other words, we were not just rallying between keeping or deleting the same text). Furthermore, both Jalnet2 and I were communicating our reasons for the various edits.
Jalnet2 demanded that I be blocked and Dante complied and, in fairness that I do not mean to belittle, blocked Jalnet2 as well. Anyone who goes over the edit history will see that this is not a symmetrical conflict in that no one who is working on the page has supported Jalnet's edits. Be that as it may, I want to emphasize that neither I nor anyone else criticized Jalnet2 for violating the 3 revert rule, and neither I nor anyone else asked that he be blocked. This is a case where I don't think blocking serves any purpose.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
steven l. rubenstein said:
Dante Alighieri blocked Jalnet 2 and me for a day, because we both violated the 3 revert rule. There is nothing I can do about it, but I do want to point out (and for now, this is the only available venue) that I think this is an example of a frivolous application of the rule. I know that the rule involves 3 reverts to a person, but in this case the multiple reverts were over several different edits (in other words, we were not just rallying between keeping or deleting the same text). Furthermore, both Jalnet2 and I were communicating our reasons for the various edits.
How about, don't get into edit wars? By your own edit comments on [[Race]], you made 5 edits there over two days, every one of which was a revert. Your last two reverts were removals of the word "some" from a statement about the rise of population genetics. Was it really necessary for this word to be removed from the article after a mere fifty minutes? If you'd changed to "nearly all" the second time you wouldn't be reading this email. In the two before that you completely removed a reference to Risch et al. Couldn't you just have changed the description? This was a published paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics, purporting to find a link between racial self-identification and DNA profile, so you could hardly claim that it isn't relevant to the subject. I see no discussion about Risch on the talk page. You also say that nobody supported JalNet's edits. Well if that were the case why the hurry to perform these reverts? Wouldn't it have been better to wait for some of the other editors, who also opposed Jalnet, to either edit or revert? You couldn't compromise with your fellow editors so you were benched. Tough, but that's how it is.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
You couldn't compromise with your fellow editors so you were benched. Tough, but that's how it is.
I don't agree with this attitude at all.
Steven is a longtime, high quality editor. His point in this particular case is that a mechanical rule like 3RR is flawed when it is applied in this fashion. The reverts were to different aspects of the article, and the participants were communicating.
Steven did not demand that he be unblocked, he did not ask for arbitration, he took it in good spirit while pointing out what is in fact a legitimate problem with mechanical rules like this.
Now, my own personal opinion, and this might be one that Steven shares, is that given the ongoing problems with revert wars and pointless edit wars in general, the 3RR is necessary and useful *even though* it also has some unfortunate negative side effects.
But I see no reason at all to take an attitude that Steven "was benched" or that he "couldn't compromise with his fellow editors".
--Jimbo
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
You couldn't compromise with your fellow editors so you were benched. Tough, but that's how it is.
I don't agree with this attitude at all.
Me neither. Tony's whole email seemed unnecessarily mean-spirited to me.
Steven is a longtime, high quality editor.
Very much so, yes.
His point in this particular case is that a mechanical rule like 3RR is flawed when it is applied in this fashion. The reverts were to different aspects of the article, and the participants were communicating.
No argument from me there. But that opinion on how the 3RR should work is apparently a minority one. I base this on asking several other ArbCom members and making an inquiry on the 3RR talk page. The rule states 'no more than 3 reverts on any page in 24 hours.' Most people take that very literally (for better or worse). I interpret 'reverts' to be the same or substantially the same revert. Oh well.
Now, my own personal opinion, and this might be one that Steven shares, is that given the ongoing problems with revert wars and pointless edit wars in general, the 3RR is necessary and useful *even though* it also has some unfortunate negative side effects.
I also share that opinion.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:26:09AM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:
His point in this particular case is that a mechanical rule like 3RR is flawed when it is applied in this fashion. The reverts were to different aspects of the article, and the participants were communicating.
No argument from me there. But that opinion on how the 3RR should work is apparently a minority one. I base this on asking several other ArbCom members and making an inquiry on the 3RR talk page. The rule states 'no more than 3 reverts on any page in 24 hours.' Most people take that very literally (for better or worse). I interpret 'reverts' to be the same or substantially the same revert. Oh well.
There are definitely arguments for type of 3RR rule instead of what we currently have, however I don't see how anyone could read the current 3RR page or the one at the time of the vote as meaning that.
Both clearly state:
Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.
I don't see how that could be read as anything but "make one revert. Allowed. Make another revert. Allowed. Make another revert. Allow. Make another revert. Not allowed."
I must say this is a surprise to me too. I would interpret it to mean 3 reverts of the same material not of three different additions to the same article.
The interpretation you argue for makes removal of nonsense unnecessarily burdensome and risky.
If it is to be interpreted that way it needs to be changed.
Fred
From: Frank v Waveren fvw.wikipediaml@var.cx Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:24:17 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] me and my three reverts
Both clearly state:
Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.
I don't see how that could be read as anything but "make one revert. Allowed. Make another revert. Allowed. Make another revert. Allow. Make another revert. Not allowed."
I must say this is a surprise to me too. I would interpret it to mean 3 reverts of the same material not of three different additions to the same article.
As would I.
The interpretation you argue for makes removal of nonsense unnecessarily burdensome and risky.
Agreed.
If it is to be interpreted that way it needs to be changed.
I haven't seen any other admins interpreting it that way.
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050203 04:32]:
I must say this is a surprise to me too. I would interpret it to mean 3 reverts of the same material not of three different additions to the same article.
As would I.
The interpretation you argue for makes removal of nonsense unnecessarily burdensome and risky.
Agreed.
If it is to be interpreted that way it needs to be changed.
I haven't seen any other admins interpreting it that way.
I have, lots. It was interpreted as "a revert is a change to any previous version" after Cantus started taking the piss by doing reverts to slightly different previous versions.
Of course, 3RR blocks can be removed before 24 hours if an admin considers the editor is not likely to do it again. I just went to unblock Slrubenstein and saw he appears unblocked already.
- d.
Frank v Waveren said:
I don't see how that could be read as anything but "make one revert. Allowed. Make another revert. Allowed. Make another revert. Allow. Make another revert. Not allowed."
I think this is the kind of thing that does show up when you get around to battle testing a rule that has hitherto only been a guideline for personal interpretation. It surprised me too that the difference exists, but since I very quickly encountered at least two people who had a different interpretation I think that's a good illustration that there is no settled interpretation yet. I've already stated that I regard the 3RR as unsatisfactory, underpowered because it tolerates a very high level of pointless edit warring. With the alternate interpretation, in my opinion, it's worse than useless, at the very best just a drain on sysop time. It would magnify the power of determined edit warriors by giving them carte blanche to perform up to three daily individual reverts on separate sections on the same article. If the alternate interpretation gains wide currency among edit warriors (and it's only a matter of time), the effects will be to intensify the problem that 3RR was intended to ease.
I've already stated that I regard the 3RR as unsatisfactory, underpowered because it tolerates a very high level of pointless edit warring. With the alternate interpretation, in my opinion, it's worse than useless, at the very best just a drain on sysop time. It would magnify the power of determined edit warriors by giving them carte blanche to perform up to three daily individual reverts on separate sections on the same article. If the alternate interpretation gains wide currency among edit warriors (and it's only a matter of time), the effects will be to intensify the problem that 3RR was intended to ease.
It has been my impression that the common interpretation of the 3RR (that it only involves the same piece of text), and its enforcement as such, has led to significantly less edit warring. Not perfect, of course, but better than it was.
Jay.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
You couldn't compromise with your fellow editors so you were benched. Tough, but that's how it is.
I don't agree with this attitude at all.
Me neither. Tony's whole email seemed unnecessarily mean-spirited to me.
It's all about a literal vs. a common sense approach to rules. A strict literal interpretation which Tony has apparently applied then starts to beg questions like, "How exactly do we interpret 'revert'?" Lying in wait like a stalking lion for anyone to violate the 3RR anywhere is clearly an abuse of process
Before applying such a rule people need to look at what is going on to see if there is any hope that the warring parties may find a solution. There is no obligation to ban anybody on a fourth revert as soon as it is made; it merely becomes an available tool if it should be necessary.
His point in this particular case is that a mechanical rule like 3RR is flawed when it is applied in this fashion. The reverts were to different aspects of the article, and the participants were communicating.
No argument from me there. But that opinion on how the 3RR should work is apparently a minority one. I base this on asking several other ArbCom members and making an inquiry on the 3RR talk page. The rule states 'no more than 3 reverts on any page in 24 hours.' Most people take that very literally (for better or worse). I interpret 'reverts' to be the same or substantially the same revert. Oh well.
Literalism creates unhappy communities. The people who use it may be perfectly correct, but have as much social grace as an enraged gorilla.
Now, my own personal opinion, and this might be one that Steven shares, is that given the ongoing problems with revert wars and pointless edit wars in general, the 3RR is necessary and useful *even though* it also has some unfortunate negative side effects.
I also share that opinion.
If in the course of these reverts there is also movement in the controversy, that is a sign of progress. The possibility remains that the combatants may find an agreeable solution after a few more reverts. The 3RR can prevent the solution.
Ec
Ray Saintonge (saintonge@telus.net) [050203 05:02]:
It's all about a literal vs. a common sense approach to rules. A strict literal interpretation which Tony has apparently applied then starts to beg questions like, "How exactly do we interpret 'revert'?" Lying in wait like a stalking lion for anyone to violate the 3RR anywhere is clearly an abuse of process
Of course, editors have the option of not performing more than 3 reverts in 24 hours ...
If in the course of these reverts there is also movement in the controversy, that is a sign of progress. The possibility remains that the combatants may find an agreeable solution after a few more reverts. The 3RR can prevent the solution.
They should be doing it on the talk pages, not on the article. That some revert wars may achieve a solution does not make them a good tool for achieving a solution. Three reverts in 24 hours is an electric fence, not an entitlement.
Remember, an admin is free to unblock someone blocked for 3RR if they think they won't do it again and understand it's a bad idea.
- d.
Ray Saintonge said:
It's all about a literal vs. a common sense approach to rules. A strict literal interpretation which Tony has apparently applied then starts to beg questions like, "How exactly do we interpret 'revert'?" Lying in wait like a stalking lion for anyone to violate the 3RR anywhere is clearly an abuse of process
I'd like to make some things plain because I think both the circumstances of the block, and my expressed opinion, are being grossly mischaracterized. 1. The blocked editor who posted here had consciously made five absolutely clear, unequivocal, self-labelled reverts on the article in the space of 40 hours, four of them in the space of 24 hours. There was no "begging the question" here, and no "literal" interpretation. They were reverts and he knew it. 2. During that period of 40 hours, he had made *absolutely no other edits on the article.* 3. I do not advocate a pro-active approach to 3RR blocking; rather it is the editor's responsibility to ensure that he does not abuse his editing privileges. 4. I take a dim view of editors abusing their editing privileges and then whining about the consequences. I will pour verbal ashes on their heads. In my opinion this is as nothing to the problems they themselves cause. 5. As it happens, the decision to block was taken as a result of a call made on the administrator's noticeboard by the editor whose content was being repeatedly reverted. This was not a case of anyone lying in wait and pouncing on a poor, bewildered, hard-done-by, revert-happy editor. As both editors had breached 3RR, both were blocked.
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
- I take a dim view of editors abusing their editing privileges and then
whining about the consequences. I will pour verbal ashes on their heads. In my opinion this is as nothing to the problems they themselves cause.
I take a dim view of people who are so obviously and obnoxiously rude. Go for a walk and do something productive in the real world for a while. It does wonders.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Daniel Mayer wrote:
No argument from me there. But that opinion on how the 3RR should work is apparently a minority one. I base this on asking several other ArbCom members and making an inquiry on the 3RR talk page. The rule states 'no more than 3 reverts on any page in 24 hours.' Most people take that very literally (for better or worse). I interpret 'reverts' to be the same or substantially the same revert. Oh well.
Yes, and there are some good reasons to interpret it fairly literally, while at the same time leaving a little breathing room for common sense recognition that randomly changing one irrelevant word in a different part of the article is still a revert.
The main reason to be fairly literal about it (but not obsessively so) is that the whole point of it is to keep enforcement simple.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Yes, and there are some good reasons to interpret it fairly literally, while at the same time leaving a little breathing room for common sense recognition that randomly changing one irrelevant word in a different part of the article is still a revert.
The problem with interpretations and hundreds of admins is that it only needs one admin with a "hardline" attitude for the user to be blocked (however temporarily). Under the current model, the will of the mass of the community is irrelevant, it is the outlying opinions that have most weight.
Pete
Pete/Pcb21 (pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com) [050203 08:47]:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Yes, and there are some good reasons to interpret it fairly literally, while at the same time leaving a little breathing room for common sense recognition that randomly changing one irrelevant word in a different part of the article is still a revert.
The problem with interpretations and hundreds of admins is that it only needs one admin with a "hardline" attitude for the user to be blocked (however temporarily). Under the current model, the will of the mass of the community is irrelevant, it is the outlying opinions that have most weight.
Other admins have the option of unblocking an egregious block.
And, you know, editors have the option of not reverting more than three times in a day.
- d.
David Gerard said:
Other admins have the option of unblocking an egregious block.
And, you know, editors have the option of not reverting more than three times in a day.
I think that says it all. In this case though it pains me to say it, it looks as if there may not even be a consensus for the classification of four distinct reverts, or even two distinct sets of identical reverts, on the same page, as a 3RR breach. Such instances should be dealt with by appeal here. I reserve my right to verbally chastise those whom I see as editing irresponsibly, however. There will be no appeals.
On Feb 2, 2005, at 4:07 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Other admins have the option of unblocking an egregious block.
And, you know, editors have the option of not reverting more than three times in a day.
What?
You mean the three revert rule doesn't mandate that I revert three times a day?
Damn.
-Snowspinner
At 09:55 PM 2/2/2005 +0000, Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Yes, and there are some good reasons to interpret it fairly literally, while at the same time leaving a little breathing room for common sense recognition that randomly changing one irrelevant word in a different part of the article is still a revert.
The problem with interpretations and hundreds of admins is that it only needs one admin with a "hardline" attitude for the user to be blocked (however temporarily). Under the current model, the will of the mass of the community is irrelevant, it is the outlying opinions that have most weight.
But that one hardliner would also have to be dedicated enough to check _every_ possible 3RR violation himself in order for his own standard to become "universal" like that. Furthermore, other admins can and do unblock "marginal" cases by their own standards as well. I don't think the hardliner would have all that disproportionate an impact, overall.
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Yes, and there are some good reasons to interpret it fairly literally, while at the same time leaving a little breathing room for common sense recognition that randomly changing one irrelevant word in a different part of the article is still a revert.
The problem with interpretations and hundreds of admins is that it only needs one admin with a "hardline" attitude for the user to be blocked (however temporarily). Under the current model, the will of the mass of the community is irrelevant, it is the outlying opinions that have most weight.
Yes, this is a tough one.
--Jimbo
Daniel Mayer wrote:
No argument from me there. But that opinion on how the 3RR should work is apparently a minority one. I base this on asking several other ArbCom members and making an inquiry on the 3RR talk page. The rule states 'no more than 3 reverts on any page in 24 hours.' Most people take that very literally (for better or worse). I interpret 'reverts' to be the same or substantially the same revert. Oh well.
The reason I interpret this literally as *per page* is the problem of someone camping out on an article, protecting it from all changes from "their" version.
I've seen this - User:A fixes one area, User:B reverts; User:C makes a different change, User:B reverts; User:D makes a third change, User:B reverts....
The three revert rule is certainly not perfect, and has in some ways merely shifted and complicated the problem - but on the whole I think it is the right rule - and should apply to pages and not versions.
--sannse