Jay 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.
Yes, technically a revert is a restoring of the article to a previous state. So a new edit/addition does not count. The first edit if a deletion does count, unless it is a novel deletion to a state that did not previously exist.
Of course complex edits are more difficult to judge, and if there is any question should not count against the 3RR rule, they first should be objected to in specificity, an attempt should even be made to move them to the talk page, for discussion of specific objections. Further edits which look like good faith attempts to respond to specifically articulated objections are also not reverts. If good faith attempts are being made and objectors are still reverting or arguing that the 3RR rule is being violated, then it is probably a case for page protection rather than banning under the 3RR rule.
-- Silverback
Jay 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.
Yes, technically a revert is a restoring of the article to a previous state. So a new edit/addition does not count. The first edit if a deletion does count, unless it is a novel deletion to a state that did not previously exist.
What if someone does 3 reverts, waits a full 24 hours, then does his "edit" again, and reverts to it 3 times - has he violated the 3RR or not? Does the clock always start ticking *after* the first edit?
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050108 01:29]:
What if someone does 3 reverts, waits a full 24 hours, then does his "edit" again, and reverts to it 3 times - has he violated the 3RR or not? Does the clock always start ticking *after* the first edit?
If it's 24h 5 min and they do it consistently, they're pretty obviously gaming the system. I don't see how they could stay on a reverting quest like this without violating other policies along the way.
- d.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050108 01:29]:
What if someone does 3 reverts, waits a full 24 hours, then does his
"edit"
again, and reverts to it 3 times - has he violated the 3RR or not? Does the clock always start ticking *after* the first edit?
David Gerard replied:
If it's 24h 5 min and they do it consistently, they're pretty obviously gaming the system. I don't see how they could stay on a reverting quest like this without violating other policies along the way.
I don't think that fully answers the question. Yes, they're gaming the system, but apparently fully within the rules as being proposed by some editors here. And some editors are smart enough to do these things without violating other rules. Can they be blocked for doing this alone? And finally, I must point out that many admins have been viewing any 4 identical edits in a 24 hour period as being violations of th 3RR; rightfully, in my view.
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050108 01:59]:
David Gerard replied:
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050108 01:29]:
What if someone does 3 reverts, waits a full 24 hours, then does his
"edit"
again, and reverts to it 3 times - has he violated the 3RR or not? Does the clock always start ticking *after* the first edit?
If it's 24h 5 min and they do it consistently, they're pretty obviously gaming the system. I don't see how they could stay on a reverting quest like this without violating other policies along the way.
I don't think that fully answers the question. Yes, they're gaming the system, but apparently fully within the rules as being proposed by some editors here. And some editors are smart enough to do these things without violating other rules. Can they be blocked for doing this alone?
People have been blocked for doing their fourth revert after 24h 5 min or so (as obvious gaming the system) without much argument from third-party admins.
If someone did this continuously, I really can't see it not being questioned by others. At which point they respond meaningfully or they're not discussing persisted-with changes meaningfully. I don't really see how someone could string out discussion for long in this manner without it being obvious they're taking the piss.
And finally, I must point out that many admins have been viewing any 4 identical edits in a 24 hour period as being violations of th 3RR; rightfully, in my view.
Well, yeah.
One point to remember about 3RR: if you get as far as *three* reverts in 24 hours, something's badly wrong. Allowing three reverts in 24 hours is one of the things Wikipedia allows but does not condone.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Well, yeah.
One point to remember about 3RR: if you get as far as *three* reverts in 24 hours, something's badly wrong. Allowing three reverts in 24 hours is one of the things Wikipedia allows but does not condone.
- d.
Exactly. I think we need to step back a moment and understand WHY the 3RR has been created. It was created to stop those who won't edit via consensus and thus stop all progress on articles. I'd suggest we be a little less legalistic about it and look at each editor on a case-by-case basis.
TBSDY
"csherlock@ljh.com.au" csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote: David Gerard wrote:
Well, yeah.
One point to remember about 3RR: if you get as far as *three* reverts in 24 hours, something's badly wrong. Allowing three reverts in 24 hours is one of the things Wikipedia allows but does not condone.
- d.
Exactly. I think we need to step back a moment and understand WHY the 3RR has been created. It was created to stop those who won't edit via consensus and thus stop all progress on articles. I'd suggest we be a little less legalistic about it and look at each editor on a case-by-case basis.
TBSDY
I thought that the beauty of the 3RR rule was its "simplicity" in that when a breach is committed there is no doubt? No sooner had the ink dried on that policy update that such a breach could lead to a 24 hour block than some of the more "imaginative" sysops were proposing to "interpret" the intention of a specific editor and demanding the power to block at will based on their personal interpretation.
There is a need to indeed keep it simple or severely restrict who may block through their personal powers for omnipotent interpretation of what another person is thinking.
Regards
Robert
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
Robert Brookes (the_robert_brookes@yahoo.com) [050115 20:22]:
I thought that the beauty of the 3RR rule was its "simplicity" in that when a breach is committed there is no doubt? No sooner had the ink dried on that policy update that such a breach could lead to a 24 hour block than some of the more "imaginative" sysops were proposing to "interpret" the intention of a specific editor and demanding the power to block at will based on their personal interpretation. There is a need to indeed keep it simple or severely restrict who may block through their personal powers for omnipotent interpretation of what another person is thinking.
I fear admin consensus appears to be against you on this one, that you do not in fact have some sort of ironclad right to four reverts in 24h 1m, and that admins will in fact apply the "is this person taking the piss?" test.
Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I fear admin consensus appears to be against you on this one, that you do not in fact have some sort of ironclad right to four reverts in 24h 1m, and that admins will in fact apply the "is this person taking the piss?" test.
Last I checked, admins had no special authority to decide Wikipedia policy, and admin consensus was irrelivant next to community consensus.
Nicholas Knight wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I fear admin consensus appears to be against you on this one, that you do not in fact have some sort of ironclad right to four reverts in 24h 1m, and that admins will in fact apply the "is this person taking the piss?" test.
Last I checked, admins had no special authority to decide Wikipedia policy, and admin consensus was irrelivant next to community consensus.
While that may be true, the problem is that admins are forced to enforce the letter instead of spirit of the law. Sure, some retarded admins may go overboard, but the beauty of the system is that if someone is wrongfully blocked, other admins can undo it. What happened to be bold and the wiki system? Instead we straitjacket our admins with specific laws, a haven for trolls. Trolls end up doing just enough to avoid a ban. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Everyking]] to see just how damaging the 3RR can be when someone (un)intentionally takes advantage of it.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
While the community as a whole does make Wikipedia policy, gaming the system by engaging in actions which technically break no explicit rule while engaging in a pattern of behavior which violates broad Wikipedia policies may meet with a common sense reaction by administrators. If you take the matter to arbitration you may find the Arbcom awarding a commendation to the administrator and a lengthy ban to you.
Edit warring, failure to communicate with other editors about controversial edits and repeated violations of NPOV policy will weigh much heavier in the scale than the minor technical violations of blocking policy.
Fred
From: Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 07:09:33 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Illegitimate block.
David Gerard wrote:
I fear admin consensus appears to be against you on this one, that you do not in fact have some sort of ironclad right to four reverts in 24h 1m, and that admins will in fact apply the "is this person taking the piss?" test.
Last I checked, admins had no special authority to decide Wikipedia policy, and admin consensus was irrelevant next to community consensus. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
While the community as a whole does make Wikipedia policy, gaming the system by engaging in actions which technically break no explicit rule while engaging in a pattern of behavior which violates broad Wikipedia policies may meet with a common sense reaction by administrators. If you take the matter to arbitration you may find the Arbcom awarding a commendation to the administrator and a lengthy ban to you.
My point was directed strictly at the notion that admin consensus is anything special. This has nothing at all to do with whether violations of the spirit of the law are actionable (a discussion in which I have, as far as I can remember, never expressed any particular point of view).
Aadmin consensus amounts to customary practice which the Arbcom will take into consideration.
Fred
From: Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:17:02 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Illegitimate block.
Fred Bauder wrote:
While the community as a whole does make Wikipedia policy, gaming the system by engaging in actions which technically break no explicit rule while engaging in a pattern of behavior which violates broad Wikipedia policies may meet with a common sense reaction by administrators. If you take the matter to arbitration you may find the Arbcom awarding a commendation to the administrator and a lengthy ban to you.
My point was directed strictly at the notion that admin consensus is anything special. This has nothing at all to do with whether violations of the spirit of the law are actionable (a discussion in which I have, as far as I can remember, never expressed any particular point of view). _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Aadmin consensus amounts to customary practice which the Arbcom will take into consideration.
Maybe I'm all alone here, but I see "admin consensus" and "customary practice" as two entirely different things, even if they happen to agree on an issue. Something doesn't have to be customary practice in order for admins to come to a consensus on it, nor does admin consensus have to be in agreement with customary practice.
--- Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Aadmin consensus amounts to customary practice
which the Arbcom will take
into consideration.
Maybe I'm all alone here, but I see "admin consensus" and "customary practice" as two entirely different things, even if they happen to agree on an issue. Something doesn't have to be customary practice in order for admins to come to a consensus on it, nor does admin consensus have to be in agreement with customary practice.
And neither does admin practice seem to be dictated by policy.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
One of the problems with 3RR-policy enforcement is that admins are supposed to treat equally the editor who is inserting an unreferenced, unsubstantiated claim, and the editor who is trying to get rid of that claim. One is violating [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] policy, while the other is trying to enforce it. Yet both are blocked.
If the editor trying to enforce policy isn't allowed to violate 3RR, then s/he must go through dispute resolution; put up an RfC (which rarely brings useful results); or apply for mediation (which can take months to arrange). Meanwhile the nonsense sits there for 24 hours; then maybe there's another brief flurry of reverts, then it sits there for another 24 hours; and this can go on for weeks, until the less determined editor backs off.
If the process takes priority over the product, that's fine. But if it's the production of an accurate encylopedia that is the priority, then this is not fine.
Surely, for this reason, when looking at 3RR violations, admins should be allowed to take into account who was violating Wikipedia's editorial content policies and who was trying to preserve them.
Slim
The solution should be to contact an admin not involved in the dispute and ask them to protect the page. Then discussion can take place to ensure that vandalism is stopped. It is, of course, up to that admin to make the decision about which version to protect, which could potentially be a problem. However, the admin should be able to use their judgement to give a sensible temporary solution - that should be one of the criterie for their selection.
If an editor has reverted a page three times in a 24 hour period, with the exception of **blatant** vandalism, they should be blocked. Period. This ensures even-handedness.
If, once a matter has been discussed and a solution reached, the change is made again, I would define this as vandalism. Thus it can be reverted and, situation dependant, the user blocked if necessary.
Smoddy
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:19:33 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
One of the problems with 3RR-policy enforcement is that admins are supposed to treat equally the editor who is inserting an unreferenced, unsubstantiated claim, and the editor who is trying to get rid of that claim. One is violating [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] policy, while the other is trying to enforce it. Yet both are blocked.
If the editor trying to enforce policy isn't allowed to violate 3RR, then s/he must go through dispute resolution; put up an RfC (which rarely brings useful results); or apply for mediation (which can take months to arrange). Meanwhile the nonsense sits there for 24 hours; then maybe there's another brief flurry of reverts, then it sits there for another 24 hours; and this can go on for weeks, until the less determined editor backs off.
If the process takes priority over the product, that's fine. But if it's the production of an accurate encylopedia that is the priority, then this is not fine.
Surely, for this reason, when looking at 3RR violations, admins should be allowed to take into account who was violating Wikipedia's editorial content policies and who was trying to preserve them.
Slim _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sam Korn wrote:
If an editor has reverted a page three times in a 24 hour period, with the exception of **blatant** vandalism, they should be blocked. Period. This ensures even-handedness.
I thought the rule was *more* than three times, not exactly three?
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
No, four times.
Fred
From: Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com Reply-To: Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:35:21 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Illegitimate block.
If an editor has reverted a page three times in a 24 hour period, with the exception of **blatant** vandalism, they should be blocked. Period.
Smoddy, clear cases of vandalism aside, admins are not allowed to choose which version of the page to protect. They are meant to protect the latest version.
Suppose you find a page that contains a serious, unreferenced claim that seems to be false, and which is making the article look stupid. You revert to an earlier version ( your revert #1), and you ask for a reputable source (a citation) on the Talk page. Another editor reverts back to the unreferenced claim (his revert #1) and doesn't respond on Talk. You revert again (your revert #2), and you ask again for a citation. The other editor reverts again (his revert #2) and ignores your request on Talk. You revert once more (your revert #3) and you beg for discussion on Talk. He ignores you and reverts again (his revert #3).
At that point, you're stuck and so is Wikipedia. If you ask for page protection, the admins will have to protect the unreferenced claim version. If you revert again, you'll be blocked. If you risk it anyway, and the other editor responds in kind, you'll both be blocked.
The 3RR violation rule is an attempt to be neutral between versions and between editors. The rule therefore ignores quality of content and quality of editors. The editor who is trying to write a high-quality article is treated the same as the editor who is editing with a reckless disregard for the truth. That is unfair, and it is damaging to Wikipedia.
Slim
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:35:21 +0000, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
It is, of course, up to that admin to make the decision about which version to protect, which could potentially be a problem.
Not really. I, personally, tend to revert back to the version that the article was at prior to the revert war.
RickK
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: Smoddy, clear cases of vandalism aside, admins are not allowed to choose which version of the page to protect. They are meant to protect the latest version.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
Not really. I, personally, tend to revert back to the version that the article was at prior to the revert war.
RickK
Now THAT makes sense.
Smoddy
It is and when it departs from that policy to a marked degree, administrators are subject to discipline the same as anyone else. However people who try to solve problems will be cut some slack, while people who constantly cause problems will receive closer scrutiny.
Fred
From: Robert Brookes the_robert_brookes@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:56:03 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Illegitimate block.
--- Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Aadmin consensus amounts to customary practice
which the Arbcom will take
into consideration.
Maybe I'm all alone here, but I see "admin consensus" and "customary practice" as two entirely different things, even if they happen to agree on an issue. Something doesn't have to be customary practice in order for admins to come to a consensus on it, nor does admin consensus have to be in agreement with customary practice.
And neither does admin practice seem to be dictated by policy.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It is by their customary practices that administrators show adiministrative consensus.
Fred
From: Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:45:36 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Illegitimate block.
Fred Bauder wrote:
Aadmin consensus amounts to customary practice which the Arbcom will take into consideration.
Maybe I'm all alone here, but I see "admin consensus" and "customary practice" as two entirely different things, even if they happen to agree on an issue. Something doesn't have to be customary practice in order for admins to come to a consensus on it, nor does admin consensus have to be in agreement with customary practice. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Robert Brookes (the_robert_brookes@yahoo.com) [050115 20:22]:
I thought that the beauty of the 3RR rule was its
"simplicity" in that when a breach is committed there is no doubt? No sooner had the ink dried on that policy update that such a breach could lead to a 24 hour block than some of the more "imaginative" sysops were proposing to "interpret" the intention of a specific editor and demanding the power to block at will based on their personal interpretation.
There is a need to indeed keep it simple or
severely restrict who may block through their personal powers for omnipotent interpretation of what another person is thinking.
I fear admin consensus appears to be against you on this one, that you do not in fact have some sort of ironclad right to four reverts in 24h 1m, and that admins will in fact apply the "is this person taking the piss?" test.
Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia.
- d.
What on earth are you going on about?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Robert Brookes the_robert_brookes@yahoo.com writes:
What on earth are you going on about?
He's saying that violations of the spirit of the rule are still violations.
--deh!
David Gerard wrote:
Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia.
This should be printed out and handed to every single person on the planet. I think I'll start a new nonprofit organzation to do that. Wikimedia will give everyone an encyclopedia. The new organization will give everyone a piece of paper explaining: it's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy.
We *are* a grand social experiment of course. But not _primarily_.
Well said.
--Jimbo
Robert Brookes wrote:
I thought that the beauty of the 3RR rule was its "simplicity" in that when a breach is committed there is no doubt? No sooner had the ink dried on that policy update that such a breach could lead to a 24 hour block than some of the more "imaginative" sysops were proposing to "interpret" the intention of a specific editor and demanding the power to block at will based on their personal interpretation.
A too-strict interpretation will just force edit warriors to randomly change irrelevant words while still reverting.
For some things, simple common sense is still best. Anyone can start to game any rule.
--Jimbo
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
A too-strict interpretation will just force edit warriors to randomly change irrelevant words while still reverting.
For some things, simple common sense is still best. Anyone can start to game any rule.
As an ArbCom member I look at the *intent* of the policy allegedly broken, not just the letter of the policy. Gaming the rules either way is not looked upon favorably by me, and I dare say most if not all the other ArbCom members.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Robert Brookes wrote:
I thought that the beauty of the 3RR rule was its
"simplicity" in
that when a breach is committed there is no doubt?
No sooner had the
ink dried on that policy update that such a breach
could lead to a 24
hour block than some of the more "imaginative"
sysops were proposing
to "interpret" the intention of a specific editor
and demanding the
power to block at will based on their personal
interpretation.
A too-strict interpretation will just force edit warriors to randomly change irrelevant words while still reverting.
For some things, simple common sense is still best. Anyone can start to game any rule.
--Jimbo
The converse of course is that too much freedom of interpretation will make for even greater abuse by sysops where they block editors at will. As it stands the evidence is already clear that there are people who are being elected as sysops after a few months purely on the basis that they will enforce "discipline" as their sole contribution to Wikipedia. This is a dangerous development and rather than encourage these "gunslingers" futher one should consider rule changes and adaptions. The use of a (Gestapo-style) heavy hand in controlling the actions of people is not something Wikipedia should create an environment to florish. (So stated to commemorate the liberation of the prisoners from Auswitz 60 years ago)
Robert
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
From: Robert Brookes the_robert_brookes@yahoo.com The use of a (Gestapo-style) heavy hand in controlling the actions of people is not something Wikipedia should create an environment to florish. (So stated to commemorate the liberation of the prisoners from Auswitz 60 years ago)
I feel that any comparison between blocking an editor from editing an on-line encyclopedia for 24 hours, and the actions of the Gestapo or Nazis in Auschwitz, is an insult to the memory of the victims of the Gestapo and Auschwitz.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
From: Robert Brookes the_robert_brookes@yahoo.com The use of a (Gestapo-style) heavy hand in controlling the actions of people is not something Wikipedia should create an environment to florish. (So stated to commemorate the liberation of the prisoners from Auswitz 60 years ago)
I feel that any comparison between blocking an editor from editing an on-line encyclopedia for 24 hours, and the actions of the Gestapo or Nazis in Auschwitz, is an insult to the memory of the victims of the Gestapo and Auschwitz.
How about this? "The use of a (teacher style) heavy hand in controlling the actions of people is not something Wikipedia should create an environment to flourish. (So stated to commemorate the time I was sent to stand in the naughty corner for interrupting Mrs Sissons' algebra class)"
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Robert Brookes the_robert_brookes@yahoo.com The use of a (Gestapo-style) heavy hand in controlling the
actions
of people is not something Wikipedia should create
an
environment to florish. (So stated to commemorate
the
liberation of the prisoners from Auswitz 60 years
ago)
I feel that any comparison between blocking an editor from editing an on-line encyclopedia for 24 hours, and the actions of the Gestapo or Nazis in Auschwitz, is an insult to the memory of the victims of the Gestapo and Auschwitz.
Jay.
Was there a comparison?
No!
The holocaust started with the first brick thrown through the window of a Jewish owned shop ... or with the first racist taunt. We have people here now exhibiting the same intolerance and actions of the brown shirts then ... and you know something Jay? Like then ... no one is saying anything. Nothing has been learned. The same racism, bigotry and intolerance has just been passed from one generation to the next.
Sad ... very sad.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Robert Brookes said:
Was there a comparison?
No!
The holocaust started with the first brick thrown through the window of a Jewish owned shop ... or with the first racist taunt. We have people here now exhibiting the same intolerance and actions of the brown shirts then ... and you know something Jay? Like then ... no one is saying anything. Nothing has been learned. The same racism, bigotry and intolerance has just been passed from one generation to the next.
Sad ... very sad.
So is it true to say that what you're what you're actually doing is comparing Wikipedia to Nazi Germany, Jake to a Jewish shopkeeper, fvw to a Nazi, and fvw's blocking of Jake for repeatedly messing with someone else's user page to racist or antisemitic brick-throwing or taunting?
At 08:38 AM 1/28/2005 -0800, Robert Brookes wrote:
Was there a comparison?
No!
The holocaust started with the first brick thrown through the window of a Jewish owned shop ... or with the first racist taunt. We have people here now exhibiting the same intolerance and actions of the brown shirts then
Your denial of comparing Wikipedia to the Holocaust was immediately followed by a comparison of Wikipedia to the Holocaust. This is not helping your argument any.
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
At 08:38 AM 1/28/2005 -0800, Robert Brookes wrote:
Was there a comparison?
No!
The holocaust started with the first brick thrown through the window of a Jewish owned shop ... or
with
the first racist taunt. We have people here now exhibiting the same intolerance and actions of the brown shirts then
Your denial of comparing Wikipedia to the Holocaust was immediately followed by a comparison of Wikipedia to the Holocaust. This is not helping your argument any.
A comprehension problem perhaps?
Let this reply by Skyring help you;
"You used the phrase "Gestapo-like" to illustrate heavy-handed admins. That was entirely appropiate. The Gestapo image is one that all can appreciate. You then used that to mention the liberation of Holocaust survivors, a day which should receive more commemoration, rather than less."
Hope that helps.
regards Robert
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
At 06:26 PM 1/28/2005 -0800, Robert Brookes wrote:
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
At 08:38 AM 1/28/2005 -0800, Robert Brookes wrote:
Was there a comparison?
No!
The holocaust started with the first brick thrown through the window of a Jewish owned shop ... or
with
the first racist taunt. We have people here now exhibiting the same intolerance and actions of the brown shirts then
Your denial of comparing Wikipedia to the Holocaust was immediately followed by a comparison of Wikipedia to the Holocaust. This is not helping your argument any.
A comprehension problem perhaps?
No. You're comparing the actions of people "here now" (ie, Wikipedians on Wikipedia) to the actions of brownshirts throwing bricks through windows of Jewish-owned shops (which you yourself state was a component of the Holocaust). It's right there.
Let this reply by Skyring help you;
"You used the phrase "Gestapo-like" to illustrate heavy-handed admins. That was entirely appropiate.
But this is exactly what I was disagreeing with; the comparison of the Gestapo to heavy-handed admins is emphatically not appropriate. Maybe when the heavy-handed admins are rounding up editors and killing them en masse you might have basis for it, but right now it's _just a website_. If an admin goes mad with power and bans you, it just means you've got some spare time in your day to browse webcomics or whatever. Get some perspective.
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
At 06:26 PM 1/28/2005 -0800, Robert Brookes wrote:
A comprehension problem perhaps?
No. You're comparing the actions of people "here now" (ie, Wikipedians on Wikipedia) to the actions of brownshirts throwing bricks through windows of Jewish-owned shops (which you yourself state was a component of the Holocaust). It's right there.
Too broad a brush there I'm afraid. I am sadened that you chose to present that I was refering to the whole Wikipedia community as Nazis while I was clearly refering to the very small group of people (whom I term "gunslingers") with my comment:
"As it stands the evidence is already clear that there are people who are being elected as sysops after a few months purely on the basis that they will enforce "discipline" as their sole contribution to Wikipedia."
So I put it to you that your attempt to twist this precise and specific statement of mine into general criticism of "Wikipedians" is disingenuous and deserving of a public apology.
Let this reply by Skyring help you;
"You used the phrase "Gestapo-like" to illustrate heavy-handed admins. That was entirely appropiate.
But this is exactly what I was disagreeing with; the comparison of the Gestapo to heavy-handed admins is emphatically not appropriate.
I specifically spoke of a sub-set of those admins "... elected as sysops after a few months purely on the basis that they will enforce "discipline" as their sole contribution to Wikipedia."
Again, I stated very precisely and specifically that I was refering to a very small group of people within the admin/sysop structure.
Maybe when the heavy-handed admins are rounding up editors and killing them en masse you might have basis for it, but right now it's _just a website_.
That's what they said way back then. What's a brick through a shop window? The time to get worried is when they start rounding up the Jews ...
If an admin goes mad with power and bans you, it just means you've got some spare time in your day to browse webcomics or whatever. Get some perspective.
Some people are more equal than others then? I wonder what would happen if one of these gunslingers banned you?
I have perspective. I try to live up to the promise that it must never happen again. I believe that whenever we see evidence of the beast rising out of the human breast we must stand up and be counted ... even if we get knocked down in the process. I am prepare to stand and be counted ... are you?
Ponder this: ============ Niemoller's address to the U.S. Congress
The exact text of what Martin Niemoller said, and which appears in the Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, page 31636 is:
"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church -- and there was nobody left to be concerned."
============
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Robert Brookes wrote:
That's what they said way back then. What's a brick through a shop window? The time to get worried is when they start rounding up the Jews ...
A brick through a shop window costs the shop owner money and time to repair. Blocking a disruptive editor for 24 hours will only hurt Wikipedia if this editor has valid contributions; this editor can take his time and effort elsewhere. See the difference?
If an admin goes mad with power and bans you, it just means you've got some spare time in your day to browse webcomics or whatever. Get some perspective.
Some people are more equal than others then? I wonder what would happen if one of these gunslingers banned you?
I have perspective. I try to live up to the promise that it must never happen again. I believe that whenever we see evidence of the beast rising out of the human breast we must stand up and be counted ... even if we get knocked down in the process. I am prepare to stand and be counted ... are you?
Oh please. Where is the proof admins have been abusing their powers? If you have a real case, take it to RFC. If you don't, stop spamming the mailing list with your conspiracy theories.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Bryan Derksen stated for the record:
At 06:26 PM 1/28/2005 -0800, Robert Brookes wrote:
"You used the phrase "Gestapo-like" to illustrate heavy-handed admins. That was entirely appropiate.
But this is exactly what I was disagreeing with; the comparison of the Gestapo to heavy-handed admins is emphatically not appropriate. Maybe when the heavy-handed admins are rounding up editors and killing them en masse you might have basis for it, but right now it's _just a website_. If an admin goes mad with power and bans you, it just means you've got some spare time in your day to browse webcomics or whatever. Get some perspective.
Give it up, Bryan. It is clear that Robert is unable to tell the difference between a slight irritation and mass murder. A person who cannot distinguish between the tales he has heard of a power-mad gang of thugs deliberately set loose to terrorize a population and the duly appointed agents of a community whom he sees properly enforcing widely accepted and lenient laws is completely lacking the facility of discrimination. His heroic proclamation
I have perspective. I try to live up to the promise that it must never happen again. I believe that whenever we see evidence of the beast rising out of the human breast we must stand up and be counted ... even if we get knocked down in the process. I am prepare to stand and be counted ... are you?
further demonstrates his astounding lack of perspective -- clearly he thinks he's defending nothing less than Civilization itself against the beastly hordes he expects will be kicking down his door at any moment -- beastly hordes of murderous Wikipedia admins. This is a person who needs more help than can be provided over a mailing list.
Another possibility exists, of course, which also should be handled by dropping the argument.
== See also == * [[Don't feed the trolls]] * [[Godwin's Law]]
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Bryan Derksen stated for the record:
At 06:26 PM 1/28/2005 -0800, Robert Brookes wrote:
"You used the phrase "Gestapo-like" to illustrate heavy-handed admins. That was entirely
appropiate.
But this is exactly what I was disagreeing with;
the comparison of the
Gestapo to heavy-handed admins is emphatically not
appropriate. Maybe
when the heavy-handed admins are rounding up
editors and killing them en
masse you might have basis for it, but right now
it's _just a website_.
If an admin goes mad with power and bans you, it
just means you've got
some spare time in your day to browse webcomics or
whatever. Get some
perspective.
Give it up, Bryan. It is clear that Robert is unable to tell the difference between a slight irritation and mass murder. A person who cannot distinguish between the tales he has heard of a power-mad gang of thugs deliberately set loose to terrorize a population and the duly appointed agents of a community whom he sees properly enforcing widely accepted and lenient laws is completely lacking the facility of discrimination. His heroic proclamation
I have perspective. I try to live up to the promise that it must never happen again. I believe that whenever we see evidence of the beast rising out of the human breast we must stand up and be counted ... even if we get knocked down in the process. I am prepare to stand and be counted ... are you?
further demonstrates his astounding lack of perspective -- clearly he thinks he's defending nothing less than Civilization itself against the beastly hordes he expects will be kicking down his door at any moment -- beastly hordes of murderous Wikipedia admins. This is a person who needs more help than can be provided over a mailing list.
Another possibility exists, of course, which also should be handled by dropping the argument.
== See also ==
- [[Don't feed the trolls]]
- [[Godwin's Law]]
Sean,
Thanks for this reply. I will use it for comparitive purposes with the AC as you see I once made a very similar post about someone else and that is now being cited as a personal attack by me. As your reply could not possibly be a personal attack ... then neither could mine, yes?
Robert
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Robert Brookes stated for the record:
Sean,
Thanks for this reply. I will use it for comparitive purposes with the AC as you see I once made a very similar post about someone else and that is now being cited as a personal attack by me. As your reply could not possibly be a personal attack ... then neither could mine, yes?
Robert
Please do. I have the utmost faith in the ability of the ArbComm members to discern the differences.
beastly hordes of murderous Wikipedia admins. This is a person who needs more help than can be provided over a mailing list.
I believe that unless someone is a qualified psychologist, that has made a full diagnosis of the person that someone passes judgement upon, veiled e-mail diagnoses of that persons mental status should be avoided. If they are wrong, they are completely useless and will only anger that person. If they are right, they will do nothing but detoriate that persons mental condition.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:01:48 -0800, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Let this reply by Skyring help you;
"You used the phrase "Gestapo-like" to illustrate heavy-handed admins. That was entirely appropiate.
But this is exactly what I was disagreeing with; the comparison of the Gestapo to heavy-handed admins is emphatically not appropriate.
And I suppose you think the soupnazi episode in Seinfeld was about mass murder? Get real. Trying to read more into a statement than was ever put into it, especially where the original poster denies the interpretation, is just plain stupid.
At 03:43 PM 1/31/2005 +1100, Skyring wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:01:48 -0800, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
But this is exactly what I was disagreeing with; the comparison of the Gestapo to heavy-handed admins is emphatically not appropriate.
And I suppose you think the soupnazi episode in Seinfeld was about mass murder?
Never seen it but I presume that it wasn't. However, Seinfeld is a _comedy_. Inappropriate comparisons are a staple of such.
Get real. Trying to read more into a statement than was ever put into it, especially where the original poster denies the interpretation, is just plain stupid.
The point I was arguing with him was whether the comparison was taking place at all, which he was denying even as he made more of them. But yes, continuing this argument is indeed pretty stupid at this point. That's why I quit it several days ago.
Robert Brookes stated for the record:
The use of a (Gestapo-style) heavy hand in controlling the actions of people is not something Wikipedia should create an environment to florish. (So stated to commemorate the liberation of the prisoners from Auswitz 60 years ago)
Robert
There speaks someone who has never experienced any oppression however slight or witnessed the least evil however banal. It takes a truly ignorant and undiscriminating person to compare Auschwitz to Wikipedia.
Your naïveté is amazing.
Sean Barrett (sean@epoptic.org) [050129 02:29]:
Robert Brookes stated for the record:
The use of a (Gestapo-style) heavy hand in controlling the actions of people is not something Wikipedia should create an environment to florish. (So stated to commemorate the liberation of the prisoners from Auswitz 60 years ago)
There speaks someone who has never experienced any oppression however slight or witnessed the least evil however banal. It takes a truly ignorant and undiscriminating person to compare Auschwitz to Wikipedia. Your naïveté is amazing.
[[Godwin's Law]]
- d.
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
It takes a truly ignorant and undiscriminating person to compare Auschwitz to Wikipedia.
I did?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:28:43 -0800 (PST), Robert Brookes the_robert_brookes@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
It takes a truly ignorant and undiscriminating person to compare Auschwitz to Wikipedia.
I did?
No.
You used the phrase "Gestapo-like" to illustrate heavy-handed admins. That was entirely appropiate. The Gestapo image is one that all can appreciate. You then used that to mention the liberation of Holocaust survivors, a day which should receive more commemoration, rather than less.
I was in the Holocaust Memorial Museum yesterday and was sad to see that the place was all but deserted. A few adults and a few schoolchildren. On such a day there should be a queue to get in.
I don't think you were all offensive. On the contrary, you made a reference to an event which we should never forget.
At 08:28 AM 1/28/2005 -0800, Robert Brookes wrote:
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
It takes a truly ignorant and undiscriminating person to compare Auschwitz to Wikipedia.
I did?
From your email of Jan. 27:
The use of a (Gestapo-style) heavy hand in controlling the actions of people is not something Wikipedia should create an environment to florish. (So stated to commemorate the liberation of the prisoners from Auswitz 60 years ago)
You didn't even realize you were making that comparison here?
Robert Brookes wrote (in part):
The use of a (Gestapo-style) heavy hand in controlling the actions of people is not something Wikipedia should create an environment to florish. (So stated to commemorate the liberation of the prisoners from Auswitz 60 years ago)
[[Godwin's law]].... does that mean the discussion is now over? (please?)
[[User:Jredmond]]
David Gerard wrote:
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050108 01:29]:
What if someone does 3 reverts, waits a full 24 hours, then does his "edit" again, and reverts to it 3 times - has he violated the 3RR or not? Does the clock always start ticking *after* the first edit?
If it's 24h 5 min and they do it consistently, they're pretty obviously gaming the system. I don't see how they could stay on a reverting quest like this without violating other policies along the way.
- d.
Everyking comes to mind. [[User:Johnleemk/Autobiography dispute]] has a list of selected edit summaries at the end where Everyking displays his intent to game the 3RR (but he's already demonstrated that through his behaviour). While arguably he may have broken our rules regarding ownership of articles (if we have any), these rules are so arcane and/or unwritten, there's no hard evidence. Everyking's successfully gamed the system for a long time. iMeowbot points out on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autobiography promotion and publicity]] that Everyking seems to have been gaming VfD as well in an attempt to get his data stored by creating numerous subarticles in the knowledge that while we can delete some, we can't delete all (i.e. [[Autobiography album design]] was deleted, but the article on its sales and charting statistics was kept).
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
David Gerard wrote:
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050108 01:29]:
What if someone does 3 reverts, waits a full 24 hours, then does his "edit" again, and reverts to it 3 times - has he violated the 3RR or not? Does the clock always start ticking *after* the first edit?
If it's 24h 5 min and they do it consistently, they're pretty obviously gaming the system. I don't see how they could stay on a reverting quest like this without violating other policies along the way.
- d.
Hey :) I've blocked Alberuni for just this reason. If a user is reverting in this way I cannot assume good faith and they risk getting blocked. As an admin, I'll be checking the talk page to see how much they've discussed this with the other party first, however. If the user has made an attempt to discuss the issue with another difficult party I'd be much less inclined to block the user.
TBSDY