Hello all,
The blocked user page says we can appeal here about a block, so I'm doing that. I (User:Cookiecaper) was blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. This was in reaction to my edits on the pages Clitoris and Clitoris (censored). I feel obligated to point out that I did not violate the three-revert rule. I reverted only three times as Wikipedia policy mandates (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clitoris_%28censored%29&action... and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clitoris&action=history). Please unblock. My IP address is 69.240.242.255 :)
Thank you very much.
Truly, Jeff "cookiecaper" Cook jeffc@gamebaboons.com AOL Instant Messenger Screen Name iownyou000
Near as I can tell it was Clitoris, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Block was done by Jfdwolff but on the request of Violetriga. Both of you seem to have reverted three times but not more.
I have left a few notes so far.
Fred
From: "Jeff Cook" jeffc@gamebaboons.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:47:42 -0600 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegitimate block.
Hello all,
The blocked user page says we can appeal here about a block, so I'm doing that. I (User:Cookiecaper) was blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. This was in reaction to my edits on the pages Clitoris and Clitoris (censored). I feel obligated to point out that I did not violate the three-revert rule. I reverted only three times as Wikipedia policy mandates (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clitoris_%28censored%29&action... ry and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clitoris&action=history). Please unblock. My IP address is 69.240.242.255 :)
Thank you very much.
Truly, Jeff "cookiecaper" Cook jeffc@gamebaboons.com AOL Instant Messenger Screen Name iownyou000 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No replies. I have unblocked the user.
Fred
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:32:15 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Illegitimate block.
Near as I can tell it was Clitoris, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Block was done by Jfdwolff but on the request of Violetriga. Both of you seem to have reverted three times but not more.
I have left a few notes so far.
Fred
Thank you very much. :)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Illegitimate block.
No replies. I have unblocked the user.
Fred
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:32:15 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Illegitimate block.
Near as I can tell it was Clitoris, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Block was done by Jfdwolff but on the request of Violetriga. Both of you seem to have reverted three times but not more.
I have left a few notes so far.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder said:
Near as I can tell it was Clitoris, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Block was done by Jfdwolff but on the request of Violetriga. Both of you seem to have reverted three times but not more.
I have left a few notes so far.
I have drafted a clarification for WP:3RR. It now reads: '''If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.''' The added text is "after your fourth revert in 24 hours".
Please check and copy edit.
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050106 20:31]:
I have drafted a clarification for WP:3RR. It now reads: '''If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.''' The added text is "after your fourth revert in 24 hours". Please check and copy edit.
Looks like an obvious clarification to me.
Does anyone have a good working definition of 'near-revert'? It seems to be consensus that not-quite-reverts count as reverts for 3RR purposes, but I notice [[WP:3RR]] is actually silent on the matter.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050106 20:31]:
I have drafted a clarification for WP:3RR. It now reads: '''If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.''' The added text is "after your fourth revert in 24 hours". Please check and copy edit.
Looks like an obvious clarification to me.
Does anyone have a good working definition of 'near-revert'? It seems to be consensus that not-quite-reverts count as reverts for 3RR purposes, but I notice [[WP:3RR]] is actually silent on the matter.
- d.
Precisely what I'd like to know, too. This is the most troubling part of enforcing the 3RR; admins have to make a judgement call, and they may very well be damned if they do and damned if they don't.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
I don't think anyone needs to be damned in either case. They should be thanked for trying to deal with a difficult matter.
Fred
From: John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:57:43 +0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Definition of 'near-revert'? was Illegitimate block.
Precisely what I'd like to know, too. This is the most troubling part of enforcing the 3RR; admins have to make a judgement call, and they may very well be damned if they do and damned if they don't.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050107 01:09]:
From: John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com
Precisely what I'd like to know, too. This is the most troubling part of enforcing the 3RR; admins have to make a judgement call, and they may very well be damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I don't think anyone needs to be damned in either case. They should be thanked for trying to deal with a difficult matter.
Thanked if they do, thanked if they don't ;-)
There's been some productive discussion of the matter on [[WP:AN]] lately. Anyone feel like abstracting something workable and consensus from that? Or perhaps leave it cooking a bit longer.
- d.
Could it be added that admins must place a warning on the editor's talk page before blocking for a 3RR violation? That would get round any confusion over partial and complex reverts. An editor who continues to revert (partially, complexedly or otherwise) after a warning is showing contempt for the rules, but an editor who is blocked without warning may genuinely not have realized that their edits counted as reverts.
Slim
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 01:19:31 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050107 01:09]:
From: John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com
Precisely what I'd like to know, too. This is the most troubling part of enforcing the 3RR; admins have to make a judgement call
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050107 02:07]:
Could it be added that admins must place a warning on the editor's talk page before blocking for a 3RR violation? That would get round any confusion over partial and complex reverts. An editor who continues to revert (partially, complexedly or otherwise) after a warning is showing contempt for the rules, but an editor who is blocked without warning may genuinely not have realized that their edits counted as reverts.
Possibly. Being wary of [[m:Instruction creep]], of course.
- d.
Posting a warning on a users talk page is a good idea. It also gives the admin time to really think whether they have to block someone or not.
I don't think placing a message on a users talk page is too onerous a task for an admin to do. Much less annoying and embarassing than unblocking an editor blocked foolishly and in haste.
I don't think placing a message on a users talk page is too onerous a task for an admin to do. Much less annoying and embarassing than unblocking an editor blocked foolishly and in haste.
Afterall admins warn vandals before blocking them. A revert war participant deserves at least the same as a vandal.
Theresa
nas ral wrote:
Posting a warning on a users talk page is a good idea. It also gives the admin time to really think whether they have to block someone or not.
I don't think placing a message on a users talk page is too onerous a task for an admin to do. Much less annoying and embarassing than unblocking an editor blocked foolishly and in haste.
Also the warning should come from someone who is not a party to the dispute, and who can use a little common sense in the matter.
Ec
I have drafted a clarification for WP:3RR. It now reads: '''If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.''' The added text is "after your fourth revert in 24 hours".
Please check and copy edit.
Perhaps the confusion here is the assumption that the first time one adds information to (or deletes information from) an article, it is not a "revert", but the subsequent 3 additions (and deletions) are "reverts". Thus "3 reverts in 24 hours" can mean 1 edit, then 3 reverts to it.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
Perhaps the confusion here is the assumption that the first time one adds information to (or deletes information from) an article, it is not a "revert", but the subsequent 3 additions (and deletions) are "reverts". Thus "3 reverts in 24 hours" can mean 1 edit, then 3 reverts to it.
This is an interesting issue, and with any chosen number will influence the dynamics of the situation.
If the first addition is counted as a "revert", then this means that in a one-on-one dispute, the person who reverts the addition "wins" the edit war. A adds (1), B reverts (1), A reverts (2), B reverts (2), A reverts (3), B reverts (3) -- B wins
On the other hand, if the first addition *isn't* a revert, then the person who makes the new addition "wins" the edit war: A adds, B reverts (1), A reverts (1), B reverts (2), A reverts (2), B reverts (3), A reverts (3) -- A wins
So do we want to bias this towards people who are trying to make changes to articles, or towards people who are trying to prevent them?
-Mark
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:57:03 -0500, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
So do we want to bias this towards people who are trying to make changes to articles, or towards people who are trying to prevent them?
-Mark
Bias towards people making changes is good since if the contributions are any good at all it posible to modify them and if they are not it should be posible to find help to put in the final revert.
JAY JG wrote:
Perhaps the confusion here is the assumption that the first time one adds information to (or deletes information from) an article, it is not a "revert", but the subsequent 3 additions (and deletions) are "reverts". Thus "3 reverts in 24 hours" can mean 1 edit, then 3 reverts to it.
This is an interesting issue, and with any chosen number will influence the dynamics of the situation.
If the first addition is counted as a "revert", then this means that in a one-on-one dispute, the person who reverts the addition "wins" the edit war. A adds (1), B reverts (1), A reverts (2), B reverts (2), A reverts (3), B reverts (3) -- B wins
On the other hand, if the first addition *isn't* a revert, then the person who makes the new addition "wins" the edit war: A adds, B reverts (1), A reverts (1), B reverts (2), A reverts (2), B reverts (3), A reverts (3) -- A wins
So do we want to bias this towards people who are trying to make changes to articles, or towards people who are trying to prevent them?
-Mark
We should bias towards the actual revert policy; what exactly is that, though?
Jay.