Blocking people isn't going to help y'all decide what version the page should be, and will probably just make it hard for anyone to work together.
I suggest you get rid of per-user 3RR and replace it with some sort of per-article revert rule, which results in article protection if a limit is exceeded. Then y'all can actually talk about content instead of quibbling over who deserves to be blocked and who doesn't.
Deserves... did something wrong... doesn't deserve... didn't do anything wrong.... 3RR blocks are punitive, and do nothing to protect the encyclopaedia itself y'all are always bringing up as an excuse to hurt people.
Not that anyone will listen to me....
Actually I don't care that much, as long as you are nice to the people when you block them... but that might be too much to hope for.
On 9/9/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Blocking people isn't going to help y'all decide what version the page should be, and will probably just make it hard for anyone to work together.
No, of course it isn't. But talk page discussion is, and the implied peer pressure from the consequences of edit warring (getting editing privileges revoked for a while) is designed to force people to go to the talk page if they can't work out their differences through editing.
I suggest you get rid of per-user 3RR and replace it with some sort of per-article revert rule, which results in article protection if a limit is exceeded. Then y'all can actually talk about content instead of quibbling over who deserves to be blocked and who doesn't.
Edit warring can be hard to define, but that's the reason for having the 3RR - it's a nice clear rule with only a few clear exceptions (although the exceptions have been getting bloated again recently, time to give it another spring cleaning methinks) so that anyone who breaks it will get blocked.
Using protection more often instead of blocking is often brought up but the fundamental problem with that is that the consequences attach to the article, and not to the people who were edit warring. It's like imprisoning someone who just got mugged.
If admins do their job properly, and block anyone who breaks the 3RR, then it all works quite nicely. All of the problems around the 3RR are not to do with the 3RR itself, rather they arise when admins don't apply it properly (ie, when they don't apply it indiscriminately).
On 08/09/2007, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Blocking people isn't going to help y'all decide what version the page should be, and will probably just make it hard for anyone to work together.
No, of course it isn't. But talk page discussion is, and the implied peer pressure from the consequences of edit warring (getting editing privileges revoked for a while) is designed to force people to go to the talk page if they can't work out their differences through editing.
It doesn't work. People won't be discussing on the talk page when the only talk page they can edit is their user talk page. More likely, this whole blocking game will only increase animosity between the parties of the dispute, leading to back-and-forth accusations of who did what wrong, trying to get each other blocked, reblocked, or to stay blocked.
In short, 3RR buries the content dispute and replaces it with a personal dispute.
I suggest you get rid of per-user 3RR and replace it with some sort of per-article revert rule, which results in article protection if a limit is exceeded. Then y'all can actually talk about content instead of quibbling over who deserves to be blocked and who doesn't.
Edit warring can be hard to define, but that's the reason for having the 3RR - it's a nice clear rule with only a few clear exceptions (although the exceptions have been getting bloated again recently, time to give it another spring cleaning methinks) so that anyone who breaks it will get blocked.
6 reverts on one article in 24 hours -> protection
That's simple. As for figuring out what qualifies as a 'revert', it is just as complex as 3RR, but at least there is less at stake (only the possibility of the article getting locked in the version you dislike, not the possibility of getting blocked).
Using protection more often instead of blocking is often brought up but the fundamental problem with that is that the consequences attach to the article, and not to the people who were edit warring. It's like imprisoning someone who just got mugged.
Articles are not people. Articles do not have feelings. Articles will not mind.
If admins do their job properly, and block anyone who breaks the 3RR, then it all works quite nicely. All of the problems around the 3RR are not to do with the 3RR itself, rather they arise when admins don't apply it properly (ie, when they don't apply it indiscriminately).
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Newbies don't understand 3RR, and blocking an established user with dozens of good edits each day, merely because of 4 little reverts on a random article somewhere, is a good way to make that user feel unloved and unwanted, possibly turning a friend into an enemy.
Or, you could protect the page until they work it out on the article talk page, rather than encouraging them to suppress viewpoints they don't like by trying to get their opponents to break 3RR.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
In short, 3RR buries the content dispute and replaces it with a personal dispute.
I opposed 3RR when it was introduced, and clearly I was not successful. The point remains that its purpose was to calm down edit wars; it never resolved content disputes. I don't see it as introducing a personal dispute; it just tells the combatants to cool it.
Newbies don't understand 3RR, and blocking an established user with dozens of good edits each day, merely because of 4 little reverts on a random article somewhere, is a good way to make that user feel unloved and unwanted, possibly turning a friend into an enemy.
The experienced user should know better.
Ec
On 09/09/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
In short, 3RR buries the content dispute and replaces it with a personal dispute.
I opposed 3RR when it was introduced, and clearly I was not successful.
Good for you! : )
The point remains that its purpose was to calm down edit wars; it never resolved content disputes. I don't see it as introducing a personal dispute; it just tells the combatants to cool it.
Perhaps in theory, but it doesn't generally work that way in practise. If you want them to 'cool it', you want to send the message that hey!, it doesn't matter that much if the article is stuck in the wrong version for awhile. (BLP is different, but anyway.) Blocking people sends exactly the opposite message - that the article being in the right version, right now, is so important that you will block anyone - a good contributor or a clueless newbie - to make sure it stays in that version.
Newbies don't understand 3RR, and blocking an established user with dozens of good edits each day, merely because of 4 little reverts on a random article somewhere, is a good way to make that user feel unloved and unwanted, possibly turning a friend into an enemy.
The experienced user should know better.
Ec
Know better? And the last time you made a mistake in your life was...?
When I meow at a particular guy whom I very much like, the high-pitch of my voice hurts his hears. So, I try to remember not to meow and/or make other squeaky noises around him. However, I do it so instinctively that I often forget. This does not, however, define who I am, to him or to myself.
Of course, that's nothing compared to many of my other mistakes, but it is one I make regularly and frequently.
Show me someone who doesn't make mistakes on a daily basis, and I'll show you someone who's dead, or perhaps in a coma.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Stephen Bain's mail client expels the following stream of bytes on 9/8/2007 11:33 PM:
On 9/9/07, Armed Blowfish wrote:
Blocking people isn't going to help y'all decide what version the page should be, and will probably just make it hard for anyone to work together.
No, of course it isn't. But talk page discussion is, and the implied peer pressure from the consequences of edit warring (getting editing privileges revoked for a while) is designed to force people to go to the talk page if they can't work out their differences through editing.
The bad thing is, some people do not believe in working out differences and will continue to make sure their contribution is *planted* to the article in question (mainly newbies?). More experienced users, however, obviously know that to the contrary.
I suggest you get rid of per-user 3RR and replace it with some sort of per-article revert rule, which results in article protection if a limit is exceeded. Then y'all can actually talk about content instead of quibbling over who deserves to be blocked and who doesn't.
In this original case that was brought up by SPUI, the decision was to just protect the article for a week so that there is time to resolve the dispute.
Edit warring can be hard to define, but that's the reason for having the 3RR - it's a nice clear rule with only a few clear exceptions (although the exceptions have been getting bloated again recently, time to give it another spring cleaning methinks) so that anyone who breaks it will get blocked.
Using protection more often instead of blocking is often brought up but the fundamental problem with that is that the consequences attach to the article, and not to the people who were edit warring. It's like imprisoning someone who just got mugged.
I'd have to kindly disagree. Getting the article protected to work out the dispute ({{pp-dispute}} comes to mind) and come with a consensus is much better than blocking the parties involved with doing nothing afterward. In fact, somebody who wanted to edit the article, but found out it was protected, could come to the talk page, request the edit, and then also participate in the discussion so that a wider scope of editors can comment and listen to ideas. *That* would actually help improve the article in a way, as with not doing anything for [at least] 24 hours, as that could infuriate less-experienced users.
If admins do their job properly, and block anyone who breaks the 3RR, then it all works quite nicely. All of the problems around the 3RR are not to do with the 3RR itself, rather they arise when admins don't apply it properly (ie, when they don't apply it indiscriminately).
Nicely said.
- -- Charli (vishwin/O)
On 9/8/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Edit warring can be hard to define, but that's the reason for having the 3RR - it's a nice clear rule with only a few clear exceptions (although the exceptions have been getting bloated again recently, time to give it another spring cleaning methinks) so that anyone who breaks it will get blocked.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Can I just ask: The Danzig people voted -- voted -- themselves immune to 3RR and I was the only one who raised a stink? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Vandalism, liability issues (like libel and personal attacks) is all I see justification for.
WilyD
On 10/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Edit warring can be hard to define, but that's the reason for having the 3RR - it's a nice clear rule with only a few clear exceptions (although the exceptions have been getting bloated again recently, time to give it another spring cleaning methinks) so that anyone who breaks it will get blocked.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Can I just ask: The Danzig people voted -- voted -- themselves immune to 3RR and I was the only one who raised a stink? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Vandalism, liability issues (like libel and personal attacks) is all I see justification for.
Wikipedia is breaking up into self-controlled sub-units quickly hey. Next thing we know WikiProjects will be starting up their own arbitration systems! Now that will be the end. Someone with intimate knowledge of a topic judging on it! I say its a great system in some ways that the contributors to a page did something out of process. Makes me believe in a workable community based project yet again.
Peter
On 11/09/2007, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is breaking up into self-controlled sub-units quickly hey.
No the Danzig issue has been around for I think a couple of years
Next thing we know WikiProjects will be starting up their own arbitration systems! Now that will be the end. Someone with intimate knowledge of a topic judging on it! I say its a great system in some ways that the contributors to a page did something out of process. Makes me believe in a workable community based project yet again.
Mediation systems perhaps.
Problem is look at the copyright rules the classical music wikiproject put together.
I once had an interesting time dealing with people trying to stop the addition of more detailed maps to wikipedia by using the wikiproject maps style guidelines.
on the other hand, people keep complaining about WP chasing away experts. Perhaps the WikiProject system is a good environment for expert retention.
On 9/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/2007, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is breaking up into self-controlled sub-units quickly hey.
No the Danzig issue has been around for I think a couple of years
Next thing we know WikiProjects will be starting up their own arbitration systems! Now that will be the end. Someone with intimate knowledge of a topic judging on it! I say its a great system in some ways that the contributors to a page did something out of process. Makes me believe in a workable community based project yet again.
Mediation systems perhaps.
Problem is look at the copyright rules the classical music wikiproject put together.
I once had an interesting time dealing with people trying to stop the addition of more detailed maps to wikipedia by using the wikiproject maps style guidelines. -- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/11/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
on the other hand, people keep complaining about WP chasing away experts. Perhaps the WikiProject system is a good environment for expert retention.
Yes, we had an editor who wrote some brilliant prose on a difficult technical subject. She just left the project. People crapped out her prose so much that the crap they wrote was recently highlighted on a blog for the worthless crap it was. Meanwhile, she was an expert on a tough technical subject who could write intelligently and appropriately on that subject relatively for a layman and other editors chased her away. I was shocked at first, but realize I shouldn't have bean, after watching a superb copy editor get chased away in a ridiculous sock puppet frenzy attack--she was supposedly using IPs all over the world, how clever of her.
Damn those experts anyway.
KP
On 9/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/2007, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is breaking up into self-controlled sub-units quickly hey.
No the Danzig issue has been around for I think a couple of years
Next thing we know WikiProjects will be starting up their own arbitration systems! Now that will be the end. Someone with intimate knowledge of a topic judging on it! I say its a great system in some ways that the contributors to a page did something out of process. Makes me believe in a workable community based project yet again.
Mediation systems perhaps.
Problem is look at the copyright rules the classical music wikiproject put together.
I once had an interesting time dealing with people trying to stop the addition of more detailed maps to wikipedia by using the wikiproject maps style guidelines. -- geni
Our maps are worthless, they contain insufficient political or physical boundaries to know where anything is on the map. If I use a wiki map, I have to use another map that has things on it. In other words, I generally can't use a wiki map because they're worhtless.
KP
3RR is there for the same reason POINT is there - a degree of getting in the way of writing is constructive, too much is destructive.
The "too much" is a subjective limit, but that doesn't mean broad agreement on a decent place to set it can't be had.
FT2
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Armed Blowfish Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 2:04 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR needs to go (was Re: Newbie biting, the 3RR, and improper labeling of vandalism)
Blocking people isn't going to help y'all decide what version the page should be, and will probably just make it hard for anyone to work together.
I suggest you get rid of per-user 3RR and replace it with some sort of per-article revert rule, which results in article protection if a limit is exceeded. Then y'all can actually talk about content instead of quibbling over who deserves to be blocked and who doesn't.
Deserves... did something wrong... doesn't deserve... didn't do anything wrong.... 3RR blocks are punitive, and do nothing to protect the encyclopaedia itself y'all are always bringing up as an excuse to hurt people.
Not that anyone will listen to me....
Actually I don't care that much, as long as you are nice to the people when you block them... but that might be too much to hope for.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
'Too much' rigid enforcement of punitive rules does not help you accomplish anything.
Blocking everyone isn't going to help... everyone will probably just get really upset and barely be able to work together anymore. There is, however, an alternative: page protection.
On 09/09/2007, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
3RR is there for the same reason POINT is there - a degree of getting in the way of writing is constructive, too much is destructive.
The "too much" is a subjective limit, but that doesn't mean broad agreement on a decent place to set it can't be had.
FT2
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Armed Blowfish Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 2:04 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR needs to go (was Re: Newbie biting, the 3RR, and improper labeling of vandalism)
Blocking people isn't going to help y'all decide what version the page should be, and will probably just make it hard for anyone to work together.
I suggest you get rid of per-user 3RR and replace it with some sort of per-article revert rule, which results in article protection if a limit is exceeded. Then y'all can actually talk about content instead of quibbling over who deserves to be blocked and who doesn't.
Deserves... did something wrong... doesn't deserve... didn't do anything wrong.... 3RR blocks are punitive, and do nothing to protect the encyclopaedia itself y'all are always bringing up as an excuse to hurt people.
Not that anyone will listen to me....
Actually I don't care that much, as long as you are nice to the people when you block them... but that might be too much to hope for.
On 09/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Blocking people isn't going to help y'all decide what version the page should be, and will probably just make it hard for anyone to work together.
I suggest you get rid of per-user 3RR and replace it with some sort of per-article revert rule, which results in article protection if a limit is exceeded. Then y'all can actually talk about content instead of quibbling over who deserves to be blocked and who doesn't.
Deserves... did something wrong... doesn't deserve... didn't do anything wrong.... 3RR blocks are punitive, and do nothing to protect the encyclopaedia itself y'all are always bringing up as an excuse to hurt people.
Not that anyone will listen to me....
Actually I don't care that much, as long as you are nice to the people when you block them... but that might be too much to hope for.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No. Protecting the article would stop uninvolved people who have nothing to do with the edit war from editing. I don't want ot be barred from editng an article just because someone else is an argumentative idiot.
On 09/09/2007, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
No. Protecting the article would stop uninvolved people who have nothing to do with the edit war from editing. I don't want ot be barred from editng an article just because someone else is an argumentative idiot.
1. It takes at least two people to revert war. 2. You can do your work on non-mainspace forks (a good alternative to revert warring). 3. It's just one article. There are still plenty of other pages you can edit, and, unlike a block, page protection is friendly and non- personal - definitely not a sanction against you. 4. If your change is uncontroversial, there is {{editprotected}}.