Every conflict on Wikipedia follows the same pattern. It begins with one user doing something another doesn't like (with or without actual policy violations) but there is a breach of civility and resultant offense in almost every instance.
It must be pretty bad if long-term contributors (say >5000 edits) or administrators are blocked over anything, and I find it hard to believe that a valuable contributor like RickK should be blocked without a polite warning or an offer for help. Without insisting on double standards for administrators, I think long-term contributors, who have spent months working on improving the project and know the ropes, should be protected against people who come crashing into Wikipedia with an agenda to push and an axe to grind.
Rick, I admire your style and commitment to Wikipedia, and hope you will regret your departure. Scrupulous RC patrollers and vandal fighters deserve suport.
JFW
On 6/20/05, jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk wrote:
It must be pretty bad if long-term contributors (say >5000 edits) or administrators are blocked over anything, and I find it hard to believe that a valuable contributor like RickK should be blocked without a polite warning or an offer for help. Without insisting on double standards for administrators, I think long-term contributors, who have spent months working on improving the project and know the ropes, should be protected against people who come crashing into Wikipedia with an agenda to push and an axe to grind.
Rick, I admire your style and commitment to Wikipedia, and hope you will regret your departure. Scrupulous RC patrollers and vandal fighters deserve suport.
Too true. While double standards are not a good thing, sometimes discretion is really useful. Blocking a really good and long-term contributor over a one-off 3RR violation is madness. If it happens a few times, then that may be justified, but else it just serves to infuriate and potentially encourage them to quit the project.
-- ambi
On 20/06/05, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
Too true. While double standards are not a good thing, sometimes discretion is really useful. Blocking a really good and long-term contributor over a one-off 3RR violation is madness. If it happens a few times, then that may be justified, but else it just serves to infuriate and potentially encourage them to quit the project.
-- ambi
Yes, double standards are indeed not a good thing.
Rules must apply to everyone, equally.
Dan
And how many users are given just a warning on their first offence at WP:AN3? Rules must apply to everyone, equally. Sam
On 6/20/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/06/05, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
Too true. While double standards are not a good thing, sometimes discretion is really useful. Blocking a really good and long-term contributor over a one-off 3RR violation is madness. If it happens a few times, then that may be justified, but else it just serves to infuriate and potentially encourage them to quit the project.
-- ambi
Yes, double standards are indeed not a good thing.
Rules must apply to everyone, equally.
Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/20/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
And how many users are given just a warning on their first offence at WP:AN3?
New users (new being subjective I define it as less thatn 3 mounth or 1000 edits) are normaly warned. I've never seen an admin or arbcom member warned since it is generaly assumed they know about the rule.~~~~
From: Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com
And how many users are given just a warning on their first offence at WP:AN3?
In my experience, just about every one.
Jay.
From: geni geniice@gmail.com
In my experience, just about every one.
Jay.
You are wrong. As I said no past admin who has been blocked has been warned. Normaly people who break the 3RR for the first time are new users who don't know the rules. Sometimes they are not then they don't get a warning.
That doesn't invalidate what I said; most people who violate the 3RR are fairly new, and are warned. Admin 3RR violations are few and far between.
Jay.
That doesn't invalidate what I said; most people who violate the 3RR are fairly new, and are warned. Admin 3RR violations are few and far between.
Jay.
These days it does seem to be mostly new users. In the past we had a lot more reasonably experenced users getting blocked. Depending on how cynical you are you can either conclude that people's behaviour is improveing or that they are getting better at revert waring.
On 6/20/05, jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk wrote:
Every conflict on Wikipedia follows the same pattern. It begins with one user doing something another doesn't like (with or without actual policy violations) but there is a breach of civility and resultant offense in almost every instance.
Not always. I remeber being involved in one disspute where both side were civil. I belive it was solved by the boredom method in the end.
It must be pretty bad if long-term contributors (say >5000 edits) or administrators are blocked over anything, and I find it hard to believe that a valuable contributor like RickK should be blocked without a polite warning or an offer for help. Without insisting on double standards for administrators, I think long-term contributors, who have spent months working on improving the project and know the ropes, should be protected against people who come crashing into Wikipedia with an agenda to push and an axe to grind.
They are. However the 3RR as decided by the comunity makes no such distinction. Do you really want to increase its subjectiveness?
Yes. I think that would be a wholly good thing.
Sam
On 6/20/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/05, jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk wrote:
Every conflict on Wikipedia follows the same pattern. It begins with one
user doing something another doesn't like (with or without actual policy violations) but there is a breach of civility and resultant offense in almost every instance.
Not always. I remeber being involved in one disspute where both side were civil. I belive it was solved by the boredom method in the end.
It must be pretty bad if long-term contributors (say >5000 edits) or
administrators are blocked over anything, and I find it hard to believe that a valuable contributor like RickK should be blocked without a polite warning or an offer for help. Without insisting on double standards for administrators, I think long-term contributors, who have spent months working on improving the project and know the ropes, should be protected against people who come crashing into Wikipedia with an agenda to push and an axe to grind.
They are. However the 3RR as decided by the comunity makes no such distinction. Do you really want to increase its subjectiveness?
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk
Every conflict on Wikipedia follows the same pattern. It begins with one user doing something another doesn't like (with or without actual policy violations) but there is a breach of civility and resultant offense in almost every instance.
It must be pretty bad if long-term contributors (say >5000 edits) or administrators are blocked over anything, and I find it hard to believe that a valuable contributor like RickK should be blocked without a polite warning or an offer for help. Without insisting on double standards for administrators, I think long-term contributors, who have spent months working on improving the project and know the ropes, should be protected against people who come crashing into Wikipedia with an agenda to push and an axe to grind.
Rick, I admire your style and commitment to Wikipedia, and hope you will regret your departure. Scrupulous RC patrollers and vandal fighters deserve suport.
Amen.
Jay.