On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe we should add the "guard dog" analogy to the rule, since guard dogs sometimes go a little outside the bounds of their confines at unexpected times. This would also support admins such as yourself, who are attempting to apply the spirit of the rule rather than just enforcing to the letter.
No. The current wording (including the bit about the electric fence) expresses the spirit quite accurately, down to the bit about its electric fence nature.
Bottom line: unless it's to fix simple vandalism as defined at [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]], there is no right way to revert more than three times in 24 hours. If you break 3RR, you are doing something completely wrongly.
- d.
On 10/6/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe we should add the "guard dog" analogy to the rule, since guard dogs sometimes go a little outside the bounds of their confines at unexpected times. This would also support admins such as yourself, who are attempting to apply the spirit of the rule rather than just enforcing to the letter.
No. The current wording (including the bit about the electric fence) expresses the spirit quite accurately, down to the bit about its electric fence nature.
Bottom line: unless it's to fix simple vandalism as defined at [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]], there is no right way to revert more than three times in 24 hours. If you break 3RR, you are doing something completely wrongly.
The electric fence analogy gives people the false impression that they can walk *just up to the edge* and even reach their finger toward it. This is why we keep seeing fourth reverts at 24 hours and a few minutes after the first.
I'd rather we were more clear that people are not "safe" walking right next to the fence like so many think they are. Electric fences don't move when necessary to protect the Wiki. 3RR does (and should) move occasionally.
Further, a guard dog can catch the scent of an intruder in disguise, much like we sniff out sock puppets.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/6/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No. The current wording (including the bit about the electric fence) expresses the spirit quite accurately, down to the bit about its electric fence nature. Bottom line: unless it's to fix simple vandalism as defined at [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]], there is no right way to revert more than three times in 24 hours. If you break 3RR, you are doing something completely wrongly.
The electric fence analogy gives people the false impression that they can walk *just up to the edge* and even reach their finger toward it. This is why we keep seeing fourth reverts at 24 hours and a few minutes after the first. I'd rather we were more clear that people are not "safe" walking right next to the fence like so many think they are. Electric fences don't move when necessary to protect the Wiki. 3RR does (and should) move occasionally. Further, a guard dog can catch the scent of an intruder in disguise, much like we sniff out sock puppets.
Honestly, I think that anyone who reads [[WP:3RR]] and fails to understand:
"The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others."
- is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they frequently can't or won't learn.
- d.
On 10/6/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/6/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No. The current wording (including the bit about the electric fence) expresses the spirit quite accurately, down to the bit about its electric fence nature. Bottom line: unless it's to fix simple vandalism as defined at [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]], there is no right way to revert more than three times in 24 hours. If you break 3RR, you are doing something completely wrongly.
The electric fence analogy gives people the false impression that they can walk *just up to the edge* and even reach their finger toward it. This is why we keep seeing fourth reverts at 24 hours and a few minutes after the first. I'd rather we were more clear that people are not "safe" walking right next to the fence like so many think they are. Electric fences don't move when necessary to protect the Wiki. 3RR does (and should) move occasionally. Further, a guard dog can catch the scent of an intruder in disguise, much like we sniff out sock puppets.
Honestly, I think that anyone who reads [[WP:3RR]] and fails to understand:
"The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electricfence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others."
- is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they frequently can't or won't learn.
Well, the amount of policy a person has to absorb to become socialized at Wikipedia IS stupefying. There's a lot to think about and remember when you just get started.
That's why I think a guard dog analogy is better; it allows for quicker understanding without thinking about it. Intuitive understanding is better than anything that requires thought.
(Also, when the dog is provoked to go beyond the fence, he doesn't always bite just the intruder; sometimes he bites everyone in the immediate area.)
I'll leave it at that; if anyone's interested, contact me and I'll help rewrite a temp page before proposing a change. If not, that's fine, too. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the amount of policy a person has to absorb to become socialized at Wikipedia IS stupefying. There's a lot to think about and remember when you just get started.
I never really noticed that. I was here for months before I read all that much of policy. There are quite a few I still haven't read and I've been an admin since June.
If you have some basic common sense, and access to a trusted peer group (i.e. Kat, who *has* read all of the policy and is easy to talk to on IRC...) who also has common sense, you barely need to read the published policy.
Kelly
On 10/6/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the amount of policy a person has to absorb to become socialized at Wikipedia IS stupefying. There's a lot to think about and remember when you just get started.
I never really noticed that. I was here for months before I read all that much of policy. There are quite a few I still haven't read and I've been an admin since June.
If you have some basic common sense, and access to a trusted peer group (i.e. Kat, who *has* read all of the policy and is easy to talk to on IRC...) who also has common sense, you barely need to read the published policy.
I came here alone; I didn't have trusted peer group to guide me. Some people are more bold, some more cautious.
I wanted to make sure my edits were "proper" before committing them, after all, they are in the edit history FOREVER ;-), so I did more than an afternoon's worth of reading before my first logged-in post. My initial thoughts were "What would be worse for establishing your reputation than having a crappy first edit?" Yet I still neglected to use an edit summary! Doh!
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
I came here alone; I didn't have trusted peer group to guide me. Some people are more bold, some more cautious.
Well, I started without a peer group. It was a few months before I discovered the IRC channel. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if I hadn't. I probably wouldn't be here anymore; I nearly left in March over a dispute, largely brought on by my lack of understanding of How Things Work.
Kelly
On 10/6/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I started without a peer group. It was a few months before I discovered the IRC channel
I don't use IRC. I get by.
-- geni
On 10/6/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the amount of policy a person has to absorb to become socialized at Wikipedia IS stupefying. There's a lot to think about and remember when you just get started.
I never really noticed that. I was here for months before I read all that much of policy. There are quite a few I still haven't read and I've been an admin since June.
If you have some basic common sense, and access to a trusted peer group (i.e. Kat, who *has* read all of the policy and is easy to talk to on IRC...) who also has common sense, you barely need to read the published policy.
Kelly
By this she means that I've spent too much time burying my head in the Wikipedia namespace and hanging around chattering instead of doing anything useful. ;-)
I do think that the Simplified Ruleset should be enough policy for anyone to jump in with, and that newbies should get a lot of leeway for a while if they're genuinely trying to contribute well.
The peer group is useful. For all the criticism the IRC channel gets, I've seen quite a few people talked out of poor decisions and helped with procedures and understanding of them; the immediacy of responses and the large numbers of people around does help, when there are people around who will offer good advice. (When there aren't, well... not so much.)
-Kat [[User:Mindspillage]]
-- "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams
On 10/6/05, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/6/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the amount of policy a person has to absorb to become socialized at Wikipedia IS stupefying. There's a lot to think about and remember when you just get started.
I never really noticed that. I was here for months before I read all that much of policy. There are quite a few I still haven't read and I've been an admin since June.
If you have some basic common sense, and access to a trusted peer group (i.e. Kat, who *has* read all of the policy and is easy to talk to on IRC...) who also has common sense, you barely need to read the published policy.
Kelly
By this she means that I've spent too much time burying my head in the Wikipedia namespace and hanging around chattering instead of doing anything useful. ;-)
I do think that the Simplified Ruleset should be enough policy for anyone to jump in with, and that newbies should get a lot of leeway for a while if they're genuinely trying to contribute well.
The peer group is useful. For all the criticism the IRC channel gets, I've seen quite a few people talked out of poor decisions and helped with procedures and understanding of them; the immediacy of responses and the large numbers of people around does help, when there are people around who will offer good advice. (When there aren't, well... not so much.)
-Kat [[User:Mindspillage]]
-- "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sure, newbies should get a fair bit of leeway. But once someone is warned against the 3RR they should have the common sense not to revert until they fully understand. Yes, I like the electric fence analogy lots better than the baseball one. Baseball suggests you have the right at 3 shots.
--Mgm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard wrote:
Honestly, I think that anyone who reads [[WP:3RR]] and fails to understand:
"The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others."
- is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they frequently can't or won't learn.
Well, after warning someone about the 3RR because I saw that he had reverted twice in a couple hours (with some snippy edit summaries), he made the following elaborate argument that he had done nothing wrong. You can see my painful, and ultimately fruitless, attempt to explain the situation to him at [[User talk:Freemarkets]].
According to baseball rules, if one has "more than 2 strikes" called against him while at bat, that player will be called "out." In other words, each batter is "entitled" to 2 strikes before being called "out." According to Wikipedia rules, if one edits a page "more than three times" in a 24 hour period, he is subject to being blocked. How is it, then, that that rule does NOT "entitle" an editor to "three reverts" without being called out? If one must break a rule to be blocked, and one cannot break the rule without reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours, then how have I violated the rule, and how would I be subject to being banned? Further, of what use is your warning?--Freemarkets http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Freemarkets&action=edit 11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Ryan
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
- is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they frequently can't or won't learn.
Well, after warning someone about the 3RR because I saw that he had reverted twice in a couple hours (with some snippy edit summaries), he made the following elaborate argument that he had done nothing wrong. You can see my painful, and ultimately fruitless, attempt to explain the situation to him at [[User talk:Freemarkets]]. "According to baseball rules, if one has "more than 2 strikes" called against him while at bat, that player will be called "out." In other words, each batter is "entitled" to 2 strikes before being called "out." According to Wikipedia rules, if one edits a page "more than three times" in a 24 hour period, he is subject to being blocked. How is it, then, that that rule does NOT "entitle" an editor to "three reverts" without being called out? If one must break a rule to be blocked, and one cannot break the rule without reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours, then how have I violated the rule, and how would I be subject to being banned? Further, of what use is your warning?--Freemarkets 11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)"
What a pity being that wilfully clueless isn't a blocking offence. At least not the first time.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
- is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they frequently can't or won't learn.
Well, after warning someone about the 3RR because I saw that he had reverted twice in a couple hours (with some snippy edit summaries), he made the following elaborate argument that he had done nothing wrong. You can see my painful, and ultimately fruitless, attempt to explain the situation to him at [[User talk:Freemarkets]]. "According to baseball rules, if one has "more than 2 strikes" called against him while at bat, that player will be called "out." In other words, each batter is "entitled" to 2 strikes before being called "out." According to Wikipedia rules, if one edits a page "more than three times" in a 24 hour period, he is subject to being blocked. How is it, then, that that rule does NOT "entitle" an editor to "three reverts" without being called out? If one must break a rule to be blocked, and one cannot break the rule without reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours, then how have I violated the rule, and how would I be subject to being banned? Further, of what use is your warning?--Freemarkets 11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)"
What a pity being that wilfully clueless isn't a blocking offence. At least not the first time.
Something to add to [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is not a game of baseball.
- -- Sean Barrett | It is dark, and you are likely to sean@epoptic.com | log off the wrong account.
On 06/10/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
What a pity being that wilfully clueless isn't a blocking offence. At least not the first time.
Something to add to [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is not a game of baseball.
Should we add that the 3RR is also not cricket? ;-)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 06/10/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com quoted:
According to baseball rules, if one has "more than 2 strikes" called against him while at bat, that player will be called "out." In other words, each batter is "entitled" to 2 strikes before being called "out." According to Wikipedia rules, if one edits a page "more than three times" in a 24 hour period, he is subject to being blocked. How is it, then, that that rule does NOT "entitle" an editor to "three reverts" without being called out? (...)
My personal solution would be to edit WP:3RR such that it says something like "Administrators may, at their discretion, block people for aggressive reverting in accordance with the _spirit_ of this rule, not the letter; this is considered acceptable, even if less than three reverts have been made to any one page in a 24-hour period".
However, this would not - to put it mildly - go down very well if suggested. (despite the fact that 98% of editors with common sense would never notice the difference)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Perhaps it would be easier if there was a clear idea on when something is a revert.
On 10/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it would be easier if there was a clear idea on when something is a revert.
Something is a revert when you can perswade a blocking admin that it was a revert.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/9/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it would be easier if there was a clear idea on when something is a revert.
Something is a revert when you can perswade a blocking admin that it was a revert.
Having "rv" or "revert" in the edit summary is a good indicator. Having a null diff is another.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/9/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Having "rv" or "revert" in the edit summary is a good indicator. Having a null diff is another.
Not much use if the edit warriour is any good. -- geni