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(a)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(a)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