In response to an earlier message I sent, "Cleared as filed" and me, Dzonatas, have discussed the issue somewhat. I've been unblocked early. There is a concern I still have that isn't directed at "Cleared as filed."
I wrote the previous mail in haste, obviously. I only had a couple minutes to spare and wanted to take advantage of time that the block started.
The 3RR policy is valid. By pragmatic review, not every admin blocks under the same conditions. This gives the effect of favoritism, either personal or political.
I have many thought over many ideas in prevention, but I'll give just one that is do-able.
If a user is under blocked under 3RR, allow a button to appear under the users page that directs the user to the policy. The button questions the user to agree to stay in accordance with policy and not edit the specific page for 24 hours. If the user agrees and presses the button, the block is undone. This allows the user to continue to edit other pages. If the user presses the button and resumes to edit the specific page, the block is reinstated for a duration longer than 24 hours.
In the incidence with "Cleared as filed", I felt I was blocked inappropriately. Other users now use such block as means for character assassination. The above idea could allow an user to continue to talk on the discussion page, which would show that the 3RR is not punitive by default and prevent character assassination.
In the same incidence, another user continued to show disruption by the use of tags to delete images that I have installed. The sources and copyright status of the images were obvious enough by guidelines; however, the user wanted to press the technicality of it. This user reported the block for which "Cleared as filed" instated. It would seem possible by this example that a user is able to game the system, get a user blocked, and add content under speedy deletion. This is why I sent the message in haste to report "Cleared as filed", as it would help make notice to not be so hasty to install a block and allow discussion.
Obviously, not every admin has lots of time to investigate and often blocks on "the wrong version." This update would allow an admin to install a block and let the user to decide to unblock early if they agree to adhere to temporary terms, which is simply to not edit the specific article for a day. This continues to encourage discussion.
Respectfully, Jonathan
It's a nice idea, but what about people who repeatedly break the 3RR or do it on more than one page. Those deserve to be blocked without a chance to get unblocked and continue.
Anyone with a single offense should be able to discuss things with the blocking admin after which the this admin can decide the review their action. Only after such discussion has no effect should someone take it to the list.
If someone makes a promise to an admin personally the admin knows about it and can make sure the promise is uphold. If any block gets a button, there's no way the now unblocked people can be kept in line.
Mgm
On 1/20/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
In response to an earlier message I sent, "Cleared as filed" and me, Dzonatas, have discussed the issue somewhat. I've been unblocked early. There is a concern I still have that isn't directed at "Cleared as filed."
I wrote the previous mail in haste, obviously. I only had a couple minutes to spare and wanted to take advantage of time that the block started.
The 3RR policy is valid. By pragmatic review, not every admin blocks under the same conditions. This gives the effect of favoritism, either personal or political.
I have many thought over many ideas in prevention, but I'll give just one that is do-able.
If a user is under blocked under 3RR, allow a button to appear under the users page that directs the user to the policy. The button questions the user to agree to stay in accordance with policy and not edit the specific page for 24 hours. If the user agrees and presses the button, the block is undone. This allows the user to continue to edit other pages. If the user presses the button and resumes to edit the specific page, the block is reinstated for a duration longer than 24 hours.
In the incidence with "Cleared as filed", I felt I was blocked inappropriately. Other users now use such block as means for character assassination. The above idea could allow an user to continue to talk on the discussion page, which would show that the 3RR is not punitive by default and prevent character assassination.
In the same incidence, another user continued to show disruption by the use of tags to delete images that I have installed. The sources and copyright status of the images were obvious enough by guidelines; however, the user wanted to press the technicality of it. This user reported the block for which "Cleared as filed" instated. It would seem possible by this example that a user is able to game the system, get a user blocked, and add content under speedy deletion. This is why I sent the message in haste to report "Cleared as filed", as it would help make notice to not be so hasty to install a block and allow discussion.
Obviously, not every admin has lots of time to investigate and often blocks on "the wrong version." This update would allow an admin to install a block and let the user to decide to unblock early if they agree to adhere to temporary terms, which is simply to not edit the specific article for a day. This continues to encourage discussion.
Respectfully, Jonathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/20/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
In response to an earlier message I sent, "Cleared as filed" and me, Dzonatas, have discussed the issue somewhat. I've been unblocked early. There is a concern I still have that isn't directed at "Cleared as filed."
I wrote the previous mail in haste, obviously. I only had a couple minutes to spare and wanted to take advantage of time that the block started.
The 3RR policy is valid. By pragmatic review, not every admin blocks under the same conditions. This gives the effect of favoritism, either personal or political.
No one ever seriously accused me of that back when I inforced the 3RR.
I have many thought over many ideas in prevention, but I'll give just one that is do-able.
If a user is under blocked under 3RR, allow a button to appear under the users page that directs the user to the policy. The button questions the user to agree to stay in accordance with policy and not edit the specific page for 24 hours. If the user agrees and presses the button, the block is undone. This allows the user to continue to edit other pages. If the user presses the button and resumes to edit the specific page, the block is reinstated for a duration longer than 24 hours.
I'm thinking no. A 24 hour block basicaly foreces the editor to sleep before they can edit again.
In the incidence with "Cleared as filed", I felt I was blocked inappropriately. Other users now use such block as means for character assassination. The above idea could allow an user to continue to talk on the discussion page, which would show that the 3RR is not punitive by default and prevent character assassination.
I've blocked everyone from anons to arbcom memebers under the 3RR. I don't think anyone has ever been able to use it for character assassination.
In the same incidence, another user continued to show disruption by the use of tags to delete images that I have installed. The sources and copyright status of the images were obvious enough by guidelines; however, the user wanted to press the technicality of it. This user reported the block for which "Cleared as filed" instated. It would seem possible by this example that a user is able to game the system, get a user blocked, and add content under speedy deletion. This is why I sent the message in haste to report "Cleared as filed", as it would help make notice to not be so hasty to install a block and allow discussion.
Obviously, not every admin has lots of time to investigate and often blocks on "the wrong version." This update would allow an admin to install a block and let the user to decide to unblock early if they agree to adhere to temporary terms, which is simply to not edit the specific article for a day. This continues to encourage discussion.
Respectfully, Jonathan
The rule doesn't care like things such as the wrong version. The whole point is thart you make no judement about who was right and who was wrong.
-- geni
If a user is under blocked under 3RR, allow a button to appear under the users page that directs the user to the policy. The button questions the user to agree to stay in accordance with policy and not edit the specific page for 24 hours. If the user agrees and presses the button, the block is undone. This allows the user to continue to edit other pages. If the user presses the button and resumes to edit the specific page, the block is reinstated for a duration longer than 24 hours.
Most admins will not block unless the person has been warned of the 3rr. I have often seen people continue to revert after being warned. Allowing someone in that situation to simply press a button and go on makes the prior warning toothless - they have just been given that opportunity and have chosen to disregard it.
On the other hand, many admins who block are willing to unblock if the person who was blocked emails them, apologises, and promises to stay away from the article. With 600+ admins, it's actually TOO easy to shop around for someone to unblock you.
As it stands right now, the system allows people to do what you are asking for. However, instead of having to convince a button that it was pressed, you have to convince a real person that you mean well and did not intend to break the 3rr. I find the current system much better.
Ian (Guettarda)
Guettarda wrote:
If a user is under blocked under 3RR, allow a button to appear under the users page that directs the user to the policy. The button questions the user to agree to stay in accordance with policy and not edit the specific page for 24 hours. If the user agrees and presses the button, the block is undone. This allows the user to continue to edit other pages. If the user presses the button and resumes to edit the specific page, the block is reinstated for a duration longer than 24 hours.
Most admins will not block unless the person has been warned of the 3rr. I have often seen people continue to revert after being warned. Allowing someone in that situation to simply press a button and go on makes the prior warning toothless - they have just been given that opportunity and have chosen to disregard it.
On the other hand, many admins who block are willing to unblock if the person who was blocked emails them, apologises, and promises to stay away from the article. With 600+ admins, it's actually TOO easy to shop around for someone to unblock you.
The number is closer to 800.
On 1/20/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
The 3RR policy is valid. By pragmatic review, not every admin blocks under the same conditions. This gives the effect of favoritism, either personal or political.
This could be resolved if admins were to be less thoughtless in their blocking. I've seen 3RR blocks of 24 hours handed out like parking tickets. Usually two or three hours is ample for a first-time block. In the case of a second offence, bump it up to 12 or even 24 hours. I'll normally respond to requests for an unblock if the editor in question has shown good faith or there are reasons to suspect an innocent error (though I would need some convincing the someone could accidentally revert an article more than once!)
On 1/25/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/20/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
The 3RR policy is valid. By pragmatic review, not every admin blocks under the same conditions. This gives the effect of favoritism, either personal or political.
This could be resolved if admins were to be less thoughtless in their blocking. I've seen 3RR blocks of 24 hours handed out like parking tickets. Usually two or three hours is ample for a first-time block. In the case of a second offence, bump it up to 12 or even 24 hours. I'll normally respond to requests for an unblock if the editor in question has shown good faith or there are reasons to suspect an innocent error (though I would need some convincing the someone could accidentally revert an article more than once!)
24 hours forces the person to sleep before coming back to wikipedia.
-- geni