The 24 hour 3RR block expired 7 hours ago and it still hasn't been removed. If Fvw isn't going to properly implement these things, he should leave it to more reponsible admins. -- Silverback
- 08:59, October 4, 2005, Fvw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fvwblocked #41798 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:#41798 (expires 08:59, October 5, 2005) (unblockhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock&ip=%2341798) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by " Silverback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silverback". The reason given for Silverback's block is: "WP:3RRhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RRviolation on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaedahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda ".)
You attempted to edit, and the autoblocker got you for an additional time period. I have unblocked you accordingly. Note: if you do not attempt to edit, the blocks will expire by themselves. This is in no way Fvw's fault, but actually a feature of the MediaWiki software.
-[[en:User:Bratsche|Ben]] On 10/4/05, actionforum@comcast.net actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
The 24 hour 3RR block expired 7 hours ago and it still hasn't been removed. If Fvw isn't going to properly implement these things, he should leave it to more reponsible admins. -- Silverback _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Bratsche-It means "viola!"
If the autoblocker actually adds additional time to a block just because someone attempts to edit a page before the block is up, then that is a completely bullshit configuration for the block script.
Keep in mind what has been happening with blocks as they are used for 3RR, etc: Blocks, originally used only against vandals, are now being used regularly against non vandals (and even sysops) to enforce a rudimentary interpretation of circumstances. The only reason that I ever supported (and promoted) 3RR originally, back when Erik's proposal failed even a Quickpoll, was that it would be enforced equitably -- there are generally two parties and both are often guilty.
3RR was intended to be a protective measure against destructive revert wars, and instead has been turned into a kind punitive measure which often is only unilaterally applied. Some people have gotten into the habit of simply gaming the system, by getting a buddy to assist in tag-teaming someone else --producing an apparent greater culpability on the part of the one individual over the other group.
At this point, there is no fine tuning which provides any degree of formal review, and as such the use of blocks against contributors (vs. vandals) has taken on an increasing air of *incivility, in direct contradiction to WP:AGF, and WP:IAR in direct contradiction to WP:DBAD.
SV
--- "Ben E." bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
- 08:59, October 4, 2005, Fvw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fvwblocked #41798 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:#41798 (expires 08:59, October 5, 2005)
(unblockhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock&ip=%2341798)
(Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by " Silverback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silverback". The reason given for Silverback's block is:
"WP:3RRhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RRviolation
on Saddam Hussein and
al-Qaedahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda
".)
You attempted to edit, and the autoblocker got you for an additional time period. I have unblocked you accordingly. Note: if you do not attempt to edit, the blocks will expire by themselves. This is in no way Fvw's fault, but actually a feature of the MediaWiki software.
-[[en:User:Bratsche|Ben]] On 10/4/05, actionforum@comcast.net actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
The 24 hour 3RR block expired 7 hours ago and it
still hasn't been
removed. If Fvw isn't going to properly implement
these things, he should
leave it to more reponsible admins. -- Silverback _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Bratsche-It means "viola!" _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
steve v wrote:
If the autoblocker actually adds additional time to a block just because someone attempts to edit a page before the block is up, then that is a completely bullshit configuration for the block script.
It does, and I agree. It blocks you for 24 hours, even if the block is less then 24 hours. I have no idea who thought this was a good idea...
3RR was intended to be a protective measure against destructive revert wars, and instead has been turned into a kind punitive measure which often is only unilaterally applied. Some people have gotten into the habit of simply gaming the system, by getting a buddy to assist in tag-teaming someone else --producing an apparent greater culpability on the part of the one individual over the other group.
If they are tag teaming, then the article can be protected to force them to discuss it. Additionally, gaming the system about 3RR is actually against the 3RR, if you read it closely.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
steve v wrote:
At this point, there is no fine tuning which provides any degree of formal review, and as such the use of blocks against contributors (vs. vandals) has taken on an increasing air of *incivility, in direct contradiction to WP:AGF, and WP:IAR in direct contradiction to WP:DBAD.
You know, I might think this was a problem if it weren't for the fact that a blind revert war is never an acceptable way to deal with any kind of content dispute _whatsoever_. If you reverted a content change more than 3 times in 24 hours, you aren't editing the way you're supposed to be. Period. If someone is not blocking fairly, that is their fault, not the fault of the rule.
- - Ryan
Oh, dont be so absolutist. Youve been here long enough to remember how thin support for 3RR originally was (and for good reason). If the rule is infallible, what actually confirms this --ie. reviews and corrects the rules when they are not? I cant go around filing Arbcom cases for every sysop whom I think is acting like a jerk in enforcing "da rulz." (Rather, it seems quite natural to emulate them ;).
This is not to say that I want to be be a jerk to people, but I am saying that if the rule is fucked people are going to get fucked too. FYI thats a problem, and one which may outweight the value of keeping any one article from being trashed by reverts.
Since when is the energy of contributors of less value than a controversial rule --one which can easily be substituted by a better protection process? Or better yet: one which, if it can be the basis for a block, should be known well enough to be appropriately enforced (all guilty parties) in the first place?
SV
--- Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
You know, I might think this was a problem if it weren't for the fact that a blind revert war is never an acceptable way to deal with any kind of content dispute _whatsoever_. If you reverted a content change more than 3 times in 24 hours, you aren't editing the way you're supposed to be. Period. If someone is not blocking fairly, that is their fault, not the fault of the rule.
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On 10/5/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
If the rule is infallible, what actually confirms this --ie. reviews and corrects the rules when they are not? I cant go around filing Arbcom cases for every sysop whom I think is acting like a jerk in enforcing "da rulz." (Rather, it seems quite natural to emulate them ;).
I'm not sure whether you're asking what we have as a check on enforcement of [[WP:3RR]]. In case you are, that is performed in the first instance by the administrators' noticeboard section [[WP:AN3]].
Wrongful use of the administrator's powers under that rule can be reviewed there. This doesn't prove that 3RR is infallible (actually I find it a useless rule and never have anything to do with it, relying instead on commonsense and public review of my actions) but it does provide a check on abuse of the rule.
If the autoblocker causes so much problems for 3RR blocks, then we could ask the developers to make autoblocking optional. Have a nice clickable 3RR box in the block screen which switches off autoblocking for 3RR blocks.
Of course, if one would follow a 1 or 2RR this wouldn't even be an issue.
--Mgm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If the autoblocker causes so much problems for 3RR blocks, then we could ask the developers to make autoblocking optional. Have a nice clickable 3RR box in the block screen which switches off autoblocking for 3RR blocks.
Of course, if one would follow a 1 or 2RR this wouldn't even be an issue.
A few days ago, I noticed a grammatical error in an article which I figured must have been fixed at some point past.
Sure enough, looking through the history, I found the point at which the change had occurred.
Dubious of the factual accuracy of the change, I reverted it and left a note on the editor's talk page to let them know that I had done so, since there was no source for the claim that was being made.
Within a few minutes I recieved a reply, giving a source and telling me that they'd reverted my change.
No worries, I thought to myself, so I checked the article and sure enough, the grammatical error was still there.
So I went and fixed it.
Only in my haste, I "fixed it" in the wrong spot.
Within another few minutes, the other party had corrected my change.
Four edits by two parties in the space of ten minutes. We discussed our changes (on talk pages and in edit summaries), made one revert each, and ended up fixing the article.
Who needs the 3RR when you have common sense?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Yes, this is precisely why it's a 3RR rule, not a 1RR or 2RR rule :P This kind of editing is very common and to be encouraged, you two communicated with eachother and worked out an agreement. However, if any of you had, instead, actually broken the 3RR there would have been atleast 7 reverts (4 for the one who broke the rule, and 3 for the other) of the article. That is not healthy. The 3RR is there to force editors, just as it did with you guys, to work stuff out, outside of the edit summaries.
Unfortunatly, not everyone has the amount of common sense you guys have :P
--gkhan
On 10/6/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If the autoblocker causes so much problems for 3RR blocks, then we could ask the developers to make autoblocking optional. Have a nice clickable 3RR box in the block screen which switches off autoblocking for 3RR blocks.
Of course, if one would follow a 1 or 2RR this wouldn't even be an issue.
A few days ago, I noticed a grammatical error in an article which I figured must have been fixed at some point past.
Sure enough, looking through the history, I found the point at which the change had occurred.
Dubious of the factual accuracy of the change, I reverted it and left a note on the editor's talk page to let them know that I had done so, since there was no source for the claim that was being made.
Within a few minutes I recieved a reply, giving a source and telling me that they'd reverted my change.
No worries, I thought to myself, so I checked the article and sure enough, the grammatical error was still there.
So I went and fixed it.
Only in my haste, I "fixed it" in the wrong spot.
Within another few minutes, the other party had corrected my change.
Four edits by two parties in the space of ten minutes. We discussed our changes (on talk pages and in edit summaries), made one revert each, and ended up fixing the article.
Who needs the 3RR when you have common sense?
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ0Tyy7MAAH8MeUlWAQiHYwgAsloUcCYUGaU5uhZauOggtIDX7PnB658c mlcIS6h+kSrT67RC+5G/b6UuobW0iNzvlIAYE67y4Buur7jrrqJr/S0hp8vCIIas fNZ4sFwQXnVYOke91HelJMQGKHUlQh0nupNOKT2GF5l3N+8gS0ky04oqMJIlkMqi f+NrApo57g+WnwnX2eoW8W4gZ00ZUY7YiXySiKRmYKRcsAwIwjNyDAFjarL2eCCO bkxQzUxsxo6I1jhHHPJ68G48fBqtHDb3ToG9wI9GUJF1SGMVekQVxPr7AwlzH7x5 iIUQNIhO7lbZguY6rydEwDiuNQ9RHu3pEHVzaPvwyLUobgxTlFSQdw== =4n+h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/6/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this is precisely why it's a 3RR rule, not a 1RR or 2RR rule :P This kind of editing is very common and to be encouraged, you two communicated with eachother and worked out an agreement. However, if any of you had, instead, actually broken the 3RR there would have been atleast 7 reverts (4 for the one who broke the rule, and 3 for the other) of the article. That is not healthy. The 3RR is there to force editors, just as it did with you guys, to work stuff out, outside of the edit summaries.
Unfortunatly, not everyone has the amount of common sense you guys have :P
That's what I saw, too. Perhaps the threat of 3RR was an unseen motivation to encourage everyone to actually try to work it out rather than insist on one's own version. I know it has been for me at least once, so even if I don't get bitten, the guard dog helps secure the property. ;-) It helps me pay attention a little better. (!)
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/6/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote: That's what I saw, too. Perhaps the threat of 3RR was an unseen motivation to encourage everyone to actually try to work it out rather than insist on one's own version. I know it has been for me at least once, so even if I don't get bitten, the guard dog helps secure the property. ;-) It helps me pay attention a little better. (!)
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
Or it was a subject you would never have edit wared over anyway. A truely skilled edit warrior doesn't view the 3RR as a problem. It's just part of the landscape. -- geni
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I saw, too. Perhaps the threat of 3RR was an unseen motivation to encourage everyone to actually try to work it out rather than insist on one's own version. I know it has been for me at least once, so even if I don't get bitten, the guard dog helps secure the property. ;-) It helps me pay attention a little better. (!)
That's what it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, it's far too often used by editors as a club: if someone makes an edit you don't like, maneuver them into being the "first to revert" and then revert-war them until they cross 3RR one step ahead of you, then report them. Bam, he's blocked, and all you have to do to win the edit war for 24 hours is get a friend to revert his last edit.
I'm frequently tempted to block BOTH parties in situations like this, one for blocking the 3RR and the other for gaming it. Unfortunately, there's a number of admins who engage in this sort of behavior, and I'm not really interested in getting into a block war or putting up with the whining (and the RFCs) that I'd almost certainly get were I to do this. As a result, I tend to avoid enforcing the 3RR at all. As do a lot of the other admins I talk to.
Kelly
On 10/6/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I saw, too. Perhaps the threat of 3RR was an unseen motivation to encourage everyone to actually try to work it out rather than insist on one's own version. I know it has been for me at least once, so even if I don't get bitten, the guard dog helps secure the property. ;-) It helps me pay attention a little better. (!)
That's what it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, it's far too often used by editors as a club: if someone makes an edit you don't like, maneuver them into being the "first to revert" and then revert-war them until they cross 3RR one step ahead of you, then report them. Bam, he's blocked, and all you have to do to win the edit war for 24 hours is get a friend to revert his last edit.
I'm frequently tempted to block BOTH parties in situations like this, one for blocking the 3RR and the other for gaming it. Unfortunately, there's a number of admins who engage in this sort of behavior, and I'm not really interested in getting into a block war or putting up with the whining (and the RFCs) that I'd almost certainly get were I to do this. As a result, I tend to avoid enforcing the 3RR at all. As do a lot of the other admins I talk to.
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.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@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.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
It's been tried. It is less than popular.
-- geni
Alphax wrote:
Four edits by two parties in the space of ten minutes. We discussed our changes (on talk pages and in edit summaries), made one revert each, and ended up fixing the article.
Who needs the 3RR when you have common sense?
For some editors that is a very steep requirement. :-)
On 10/6/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If the autoblocker causes so much problems for 3RR blocks, then we could ask the developers to make autoblocking optional. Have a nice clickable 3RR box in the block screen which switches off autoblocking for 3RR blocks.
Of course, if one would follow a 1 or 2RR this wouldn't even be an issue.
I'm not inclined to care a whole lot. People who hit the 3RR have already gone beyond reasonable editing. Whether they get blocked for 24 hours or a week is not that great of a concern to me.
Kelly