Ec wrote:
I can support something like the three revert concept as a guideline, but certainly not as a rule, and even less as an enforceable rule.
Last time I checked the 3-revert rule had well over 80% support from a wide-ranging and large group of Wikipedians. That makes it a policy here in wikiland.
What there is, is a good deal of disagreement on how to enforce this policy.
Martin's idea for protecting the version a 3-revert-rule-breaking edit warrior does not like seems to be a reasonable extension of our current protection guidelines (and are now a part of those guidelines thanks to Jimbo's support for the idea).
I would like to add a three-strike policy on top of that: if a user breaks the 3-revert rule 3 times or more in a certain time-frame, then that user gets a 24 hour time out (which could get longer for repeatedly striking out until a certain number is reached - then it is off the arbitration committee).
Sadly, we are not a small little community anymore where informal means of running the shop could do just fine. We need clear rules and clear ways to enforce those rules.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Sadly, we are not a small little community anymore where informal means of running the shop could do just fine. We need clear rules and clear ways to enforce those rules.
I'm very much in agreement with Daniel here. One thing in particular that I find frustrating and troubling now is that even the policies that we do have are not sometimes not clearly stated as policies. For example, [[wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]] is the main entry point into the Wikipedia policies. There you will find that "No personal attacks", "No offensive user names", and other items that seem to have the force of policy are listed under "Specific guidelines to consider", where you will also find "Ignore all rules" and "state the obvious".
I believe that the time has come to firmly state exactly what policies we have, and clearly separate them from "suggestions". We still want to keep the list of policies as short as we can, but no one is served by the confusing mish-mash that exists now.
I suppose what is required first is for someone (Jimbo?) or some group to define exactly how policies are set and reviewed. (I've heard that 80% is considered valid consensus for a policy, but where is that stated? How is the polling to be conducted?)
I'm not sure how the Arbitration Committee is proceeding where policies are vague, but it seems to me that their efforts would be only aided by any clarification of what our policies are.
-Rich Holton (user: Rholton)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com