Hi, I'm Tern and 83.65.67.99. This is an overall questioning of how the 3RR block rule can work, that leads to a reform proposal. It's more than just about a present row.

The 3RR rule can be abused if a page comes under group targetting that outnumbers the defence or targets one person. Wikipedia's ethicality needs to be protected by modifying the 3RR rule to prevent this.

This issue is presented on the evidence of the chaos presently overwhelming the article [[Asperger's Syndrome]], where an outbreak of really spiteful personally targetted bullying can be read on the talk page since Aug 18. I don't mind the 3RR block being used to see if it cools the situation. But - if 1 person gets a block and the group organised against him don't get a block, because no single one of them has committed 3RR, then bullies are rewarded and their attack on the page gets protected and encouraged. This has just happened to me.

The case involves an issue of child cruelty related to the medical subject of Asperger Syndrome, which the attackers want to veto any mention of at all. The record of the argument had been of them solidly refusing either to add a converse view to the page or to attempt to find any mutually neutral wording. I kept asking them to do both, and my edits were not simple reversions but new adaptations but because I did not lie down and accept them attacking the page every few minutes by organised force of numbers it was me who ended up with a 2-day block under 3RR. You see how the balance of power was unbalanced?

The admin who made the block said it was on higher instructions and he wasn't personally even in favour of it. Yet I can see the point of trying to bring some calm to the situation by trying to see if some reasoned discussion takes place (it isn't) while the contenders are silenced. So, I told him, I am ''actually not contesting my block'' provided all the opponents I had during the preceding day have been blocked as well. Only if they have not been, am I contesting my block, on grounds of one-sidedness towards a person already being victimised concertedly - and if they get a block put on them now, belatedly, I won't claim that mine is wrong. My edits were not simple reversions but attempts at constructive new edits incorporating others' feelings, and only the opponents' POV gets favoured by them each having a personal right to 3RR which they can pool.

How then is Wikipedia to guard against having its ethic of neutral content destroyed by the 3RR rule working in favour of bullying campaigns and organised frequent attacks on pages? An ethical concern for the entire nature of Wikipedia and reform proposal to solve the anomaly, arises from this case.It should be circulated to the entire list of contactable users for comment, so it can be put into practice straight away.

Proposal: simply enact

(i) the 3RR rule also to apply when different people make the same revert, exactly the same as when 1 person does. Hence a group of users all editing on the same side of an argument will be subject to the rule, collectively, on equal terms to an individual. (ii) When a 2-sided high-frequency edit war is happening, if a 3RR block is made it must be made simultaneously on every person on both sides who took part during the preceding day. Admins at all levels with discretion whether to apply a 3RR block, shall not have discretion to apply one to only 1 side of such a dispute. (iii) ''Except'' as part of such a 2-sided parity, a reverter who does not make simple reverts to the past but writes new adaptations can't be given a 3RR block, unless - There is a constructive editorial discussion in progress, that is about content not personal attacks towards that person's side, and about factuality not an insistence on simply deleting an item on grounds of not thinking it important.

Studying this case, do you see that without these rule changes, Wikipedia can be dragged into giving non-neutral positions with content censored by the agenda of a group who keep editing the same way? and on serious issues of how children are treated? On the basis of this case that has just happened, I contend that Wikipedia visibly owes to its members to make this rule change.

___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com