I am personally endorsing and promoting a proposal that the 3 Revert Rule be enforced. The exact wording of the proposal is:
If you violate the 3 revert rule, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops should treat both sides equally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement
I encourage everyone to vote. I actually even encourage you to vote yes. This is a long overdue change, and I believe there is strong community consensus for it. After the poll is finalized, I will back it fully.
I discussed the exact wording with several people, and have discussed the revert rule generally with a lot of people, even some of the worst violators. I don't think we'll have much problem getting this passed quickly.
--Jimbo
I have a question: if a revert war happens and the page needs to be blocked, should hte material that was removed be readded, or should it be taken out and put on the talk page for it to be discussed.
How long should the revert stay for? How can the other party put their side forth properly and allow for a compromise, or show that the other party was wrong to make the changes they did? How will we guarantee fairness?
I say this because a good example is looming at [[Exploding whale]] - Mikkalai keeps taking away the phrase ", who described himself as a "land-''blubber''" and reported that "the blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds."" because he says its "bragging", though it isn't. I don't think Mikkalai understands bragging, and I don't think he's watched the video because it was just straight (humorous) reporting! I've taken it to the talk page, but lets say I get reverted again without the user talking, should he be allowed to get away with that?
Why not just make a policy that says that the initiator of the original edit must justify his edits, and the reverter must take to the talk page as soon as they do the revert? Wouldn't that fix a lot of problems?
Ta bu shi da yu
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
I am personally endorsing and promoting a proposal that the 3 Revert Rule be enforced. The exact wording of the proposal is:
If you violate the 3 revert rule, sysops may block you for upto 24 hours. In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops should treat both sides equally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement
I encourage everyone to vote. I actually even encourage you to vote yes. This is a long overdue change, and I believe there is strong community consensus for it. After the poll is finalized, I will back it fully.
I discussed the exact wording with several people, and have discussed the revert rule generally with a lot of people, even some of the worst violators. I don't think we'll have much problem getting this passed quickly.
--Jimbo
I would like to work toward a policy which specified that both parties to a disputed edit, the one adding it and the one removing it, should be required to either justify their action with some reference from an accepted source or drop the dispute.
Fred
From: "csherlock@ljh.com.au" csherlock@ljh.com.au Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:49:25 +1100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR policy change
I have a question: if a revert war happens and the page needs to be blocked, should hte material that was removed be readded, or should it be taken out and put on the talk page for it to be discussed.
How long should the revert stay for? How can the other party put their side forth properly and allow for a compromise, or show that the other party was wrong to make the changes they did? How will we guarantee fairness?
I say this because a good example is looming at [[Exploding whale]] - Mikkalai keeps taking away the phrase ", who described himself as a "land-''blubber''" and reported that "the blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds."" because he says its "bragging", though it isn't. I don't think Mikkalai understands bragging, and I don't think he's watched the video because it was just straight (humorous) reporting! I've taken it to the talk page, but lets say I get reverted again without the user talking, should he be allowed to get away with that?
Why not just make a policy that says that the initiator of the original edit must justify his edits, and the reverter must take to the talk page as soon as they do the revert? Wouldn't that fix a lot of problems?
Ta bu shi da yu
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
I am personally endorsing and promoting a proposal that the 3 Revert Rule be enforced. The exact wording of the proposal is:
If you violate the 3 revert rule, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops should treat both sides equally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement
I encourage everyone to vote. I actually even encourage you to vote yes. This is a long overdue change, and I believe there is strong community consensus for it. After the poll is finalized, I will back it fully.
I discussed the exact wording with several people, and have discussed the revert rule generally with a lot of people, even some of the worst violators. I don't think we'll have much problem getting this passed quickly.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l