If we should want to use edit-warring as a tool to achieve this end, we should do so in full awareness that its over-use is ill-regarded by the community and may land us with a block. In particular, we should not complain when over-zealous use of reverts in the face of multiple opposition lands us with a 3RR block.
Those who edit war are still entitled to a fair assessment of the alleged 3RR violation evidence, and to a fair implementation of the block based upon that assessment, and to complain if there were problems with either of these. -- Silverback
On 10/8/05, actionforum@comcast.net actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
Those who edit war are still entitled to a fair assessment of the alleged 3RR violation evidence, and to a fair implementation of the block based upon that assessment, and to complain if there were problems with either of these.
Possibly. I think opinion is divided on this. My personal opinion is that edit warring should be deprecated to the point where those who edit war should have no expectation of a strict interpretation of the rules. In general a block on a party that is seen as edit warring tends to attract popular support, so IAR applies well here.
3RR is great when used properly, but Im not sure it is consistently used in a proper way.
1) there is no binding review of anything except the Arbcom 2) the Arbcom's supremacy in binding decisions makes them treat issues disputes and conduct disputes as one 3) hence they typically neglect making any rulings on issues or policy -- matters of review are too small for the Arbcom to deal with, and they defer to consensus 4) Consensus can be uselessly indeterminate and unintelligent in areas which are not sharply clear-cut 5) As an example of "policy shift," 3RR has a different function in the current context than it did was when it was first implemented. For example, a counterweight serves to balance excess weight in an opposing area --remove the weight and the counterweight itself becomes a problem needed correction. 6) "nobody knows how it works"
Sum up: Policy review, separate Committee for handling issues disputes, and another for handling policy review/oversight. Establish a unitary central case body which lists each case in terms of both issues and conduct.
SV
--- actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
If we should want to use edit-warring as a tool to
achieve this end, we
should do so in full awareness that its over-use
is ill-regarded by the
community and may land us with a block. In
particular, we should not
complain when over-zealous use of reverts in the
face of multiple opposition
lands us with a 3RR block.
Those who edit war are still entitled to a fair assessment of the alleged 3RR violation evidence, and to a fair implementation of the block based upon that assessment, and to complain if there were problems with either of these. -- Silverback _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On 10/8/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
3RR is great when used properly, but Im not sure it is consistently used in a proper way.
- there is no binding review of anything except the
Arbcom
That's incorrect. Any 3RR block imposed by any administrator can be challenged by any editor and reversed by any other administrator. Community consensus in this matter is binding.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Those who edit war are still entitled to a fair assessment of the alleged 3RR violation evidence, and to a fair implementation of the block based upon that assessment, and to complain if there were problems with either of these. -- Silverback
Not so, at least not literally.
Those who are /accused/ of edit warring are entitled to an assessment. Those who /are/ edit warring are entitled to nothing but being sent to their rooms for a time-out.
Edit warring is an offense against the community that estops the "warrior" from the recourses available to those with self-control.
- -- Sean Barrett | Never stand next to anyone throwing sean@epoptic.com | shit at an armed man. --Larry Niven