The three revert rule was not meant to be applied mechanically for every person who violates the rule - in fact, the phrasing (which I wrote) makes this clear. Admins are expected to use their discretion when blocking people for violating it, and SHOULD NOT be blocking every person who reverts three times.
Just my 2 cents.
--Mark
Mark Pellegrini said:
The three revert rule was not meant to be applied mechanically for every person who violates the rule - in fact, the phrasing (which I wrote) makes this clear. Admins are expected to use their discretion when blocking people for violating it,
Yes. But why not? Would the life of Wikipedia benefit more from an edit done *now* rather than, say, tomorrow? But why? If you find yourself reverting more than once a day (and I have), isn't that a pretty good indication that you're (a) editing way too much and (b) in disagreement with at least one other person? In such a situation, why should someone who persists in reverting *as many as four times* deserve any kind of sympathy?
and SHOULD NOT be blocking every person who reverts three times.
I think it's four times. Seriously, I think we should be aiming for 1RR.
Tony Sidaway said: I think it's four times. Seriously, I think we should be aiming for 1RR.
What's the difference? It seems most people can be divided in the following three groups: those that only revert once (or never), those that revert as many times (3) as they can before breaking the rule, and those that don't follow rules. Whether it's 1 or 3 or 10, the end result will be the same. Lowering the count would just result in more administrator intervention, which is not necessarily a good thing.
-jag123
Tony Sidaway said:
Seriously, I think we should be aiming for 1RR.
I supported the 3 revert-rule with the understanding it would be interpreted in the sense that Mark Pellegrini expressed earlier, and that I think Jimbo has also indicated. If the 3RR were to come up for reconsideration in its present form, I do not think I would continue to support it. And that is not simply because I fell victim to it (although that has motivated me to express my concerns presently). It appears to me that it has become fodder for vindictive qualties in editors, and encourages counting reverts and playing gamesmanship to the brink rather than assuming good faith, engaging in civil discourse, and trying to reach consensus. Disagreements are a natural part of the wiki-editing process and we really should not be surprised that otherwise well-meaning persons sometimes revert an article more than three times in a day. However, such disagreements do not necessarily require punitive actions. If discussion is occurring and progressing, then what is the real harm if the article is reverted a few times in the course of a day?
Yes, there is an illusion of fairness in having a black and white rule with an absolute threshold. However, I do not think such a standard is very wiki-like in spirit. In my case, because Netoholic saw fit to continue in pursuing punitive actions against me, even though there was no longer any disagreement between us, I feel very little good will towards him. While he had been growing in my estimation through doing much good work lately (despite some controversies early on), at this point I have absolutely no respect for him whatsoever as a responsible wiki-editor. While I will certainly be much more cognizent of the number of reverts in encounters with him from now on, I am less inclined than ever to give even the slightest accomodation to him in discussions of substantive matters. Is that petty of me? Yes, but I am human. Could it have been avoided? You bet. Instead of continuing to pursue punitive action against (of which I was unware by the way), if he had simply tried talking with me, either on the article discussion page or my user page, we could have worked out our differences in a civil manner and he most likely would have gone up in my estimation. I mean, I think I am a reasonable person. I may be a little prone to making smart-ass remarks sometimes, but if someone has a good reason for what they are doing, I am willing to discuss any objections I might have. However, the blind application of the 3RR seems to have obliterated whatever good will may have been possible between us. It will likely take a very long time for either of us to be able to assume good faith on the part of the other. Perhaps I am an exception. Perhaps other people will find that the mechanistic application of the 3RR actually encourages discussion and promotes the assumption of good faith. I kinda doubt it though.
Bkonrad
Yes, there is an illusion of fairness in having a black and white rule with an absolute threshold. However, I do not think such a standard is very wiki-like in spirit. In my case, because Netoholic saw fit to continue in pursuing punitive actions against me, even though there was no longer any disagreement between us, I feel very little good will towards him.
I note that there was little administrator support for continuing the block, once the situation was understood, regardless of Netoholic's many arguments that it should be continued/extended.
Jay.
Yes. But why not? Would the life of Wikipedia benefit more from an edit done *now* rather than, say, tomorrow? But why?
Because Wikipedia should be a trusted encyclopedic resource of NPOV information, not a place where any anonymous POV warrior can put obvious bias into an article and have it stay up for days at at time, all the while being mirrored on dozens of Wikipedia copy sites.
If you find yourself reverting more than once a day (and I have), isn't that a pretty good indication that you're (a) editing way too much and (b) in disagreement with at least one other person?
a) possibly. b) what's your point?
I think it's four times. Seriously, I think we should be aiming for 1RR.
Perhaps in some other ideal world or project.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
[I wrote]
If you find yourself reverting more than once a day (and I have), isn't that a pretty good indication that you're (a) editing way too much and (b) in disagreement with at least one other person?
a) possibly. b) what's your point?
That there is a serious difference of opinion on what the article should contain, and your own opinion is probably not (yet) in the majority. This should probably not be resolved by edit warring, in my opinion, because the scope for communication is very low. In my experience it's easier to persuade people if you resort to English, and use the talk page. I've rarely had a problem gaining wide support for an edit that I discussed in any depth, but I've seen edit wars go on for days, whose only effect is to exacerbate ill feelings.
I blocked the user so I suspose I had better explain
I try and apply policy evenly. I tend to take the view that the alturnative is that you end up with a popularity contest which will result in even more 3RR gameing. In this case I made my descision based on the following:
1.The user was not reverting vanderlism
2. They were straight forward reverts not "complex reverts"
3. There was no reason to assume that the user was not aware if policy
There are 370 active admins that is a lot of people to appeal to if you belive I have made a mistake.
geni wrote:
I blocked the user so I suspose I had better explain
Geni, just to be clear, I'm not faulting you or accusing you in any way and I'm sorry if I implied that. My questions were aimed at trying to reach a broader understanding and consensus about when the 3RR should be applied. I think the operative phrasing in the 3RR is that it is "intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars". If anyone, I have a problem with Netoholic immediately resorting to the 3RR as a legalistic maneuver to essentially slap my face. Though it may not be what he intended, he was successful in both insulting me and in undermining whatever respect I had for him as a wikipedia editor. Whatever the number of reverts made, that dispute had made progress and was not a sterile edit war, so seeking retribution under the 3RR was in my opinion, very unwikilike and counterproductive. I mean, at a minimum, I would have expected a warning from Netoholic saying that he was planning to seek enforcement if I continued to revert. That would simply be common decency.
I think having a blind threshold for the 3RR encourages revert-counting over productive discussion.
bkonrad
Bill Konrad wrote:
Geni, just to be clear, I'm not faulting you or accusing you in any way and I'm sorry if I implied that. My questions were aimed at trying to reach a broader understanding and consensus about when the 3RR should be applied. I think the operative phrasing in the 3RR is that it is "intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars". If anyone, I have a problem with Netoholic immediately resorting to the 3RR as a legalistic maneuver to essentially slap my face. Though it may not be what he intended, he was successful in both insulting me and in undermining whatever respect I had for him as a wikipedia editor. Whatever the number of reverts made, that dispute had made progress and was not a sterile edit war, so seeking retribution under the 3RR was in my opinion, very unwikilike and counterproductive. I mean, at a minimum, I would have expected a warning from Netoholic saying that he was planning to seek enforcement if I continued to revert. That would simply be common decency.
You raise an interesting point. While I'm not sure adding more fine-grained administrative guidance to the rule is the best idea, a notion along those lines occurs to me:
Might it be desirable to add a notation to the 3RR about how to apply the rule when a complaint is lodged by one of the participants in an edit war? By this, I'm suggesting a statement to the effect that a participating edit warrior should post a polite warning that administrative action will be pursued before seeking intervention, and that at least one more revert must be applied after such a warning before a complaint by a war-participant leads to an application of the 3RR.
I'm sure it can be better phrased than that, for clarity. The purpose of such a modification of the rule, in any case, would be to promote dialog rather than retribution and spite. The soft approach seems the more appropriate, when it can be applied effectively, as compared with the hard approach. If we can encourage that, I think we should.
-- Chad
Tony Sidaway wrote: That there is a serious difference of opinion on what the article should contain, and your own opinion is probably not (yet) in the majority. This should probably not be resolved by edit warring, in my opinion, because the scope for communication is very low. In my experience it's easier to persuade people if you resort to English, and use the talk page.
It depends on how committed they are to Wikipedia policy. If they are committed to "NPOV" and "No original research" in particular, then these things are usually (and even then not always) better resolved on the Talk: pages. But there are many editors (admittedly usually newer ones) who are not committed to these principles, and with them Talk: is often useless. And you'll tend to find those kinds of editors on hot-topic pages.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
But there are many editors (admittedly usually newer ones) who are not committed to these principles, and with them Talk: is often useless. And you'll tend to find those kinds of editors on hot-topic pages.
I've run into people like that, I'm sure we all have. But I really don't understand why you would claim that using talk with newcomers and mavericks is useless. Newcomers need to be handled gently and with understanding, as your aware. Mavericks can only really be dealt with via dispute resolution, which requires us to assume good faith and try to use persuasion in the first instance. Give a troll a chance and he'll hang himself. A maverick with clue can be an asset, up to a point. Either way we don't want to let them drag us into pointless edit wars.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
JAY JG said:
But there are many editors (admittedly usually newer ones) who are not committed to these principles, and with them Talk: is often useless. And you'll tend to find those kinds of editors on hot-topic pages.
I've run into people like that, I'm sure we all have. But I really don't understand why you would claim that using talk with newcomers and mavericks is useless.
I don't think that's what was being said at all. My interpretation of phrasing was not that "using talk with newcomers and mavericks is useless," but rather that there is a statistical trend of "useless" effect to discussion with certain demographics. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't try talking to members of such demographics, but rather that one should understand that sometimes such attempts at reasonable discussion are more prone to failure than with other people.
Newcomers need to be handled gently and with understanding, as your aware. Mavericks can only really be dealt with via dispute resolution, which requires us to assume good faith and try to use persuasion in the first instance. Give a troll a chance and he'll hang himself. A maverick with clue can be an asset, up to a point.
I don't see that as actually disputing the statement you quoted at all.
-- Chad
Chad Perrin said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I've run into people like that, I'm sure we all have. But I really don't understand why you would claim that using talk with newcomers and mavericks is useless.
I don't think that's what was being said at all. My interpretation of phrasing was not that "using talk with newcomers and mavericks is useless," but rather that there is a statistical trend of "useless" effect to discussion with certain demographics. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't try talking to members of such demographics, but rather that one should understand that sometimes such attempts at reasonable discussion are more prone to failure than with other people.
I think my phrasing was sloppy. I meant that I don't think discussion is *ever* useless. There is simply no point at which, in my opinion, it is acceptable to resort to edit warring--certainly not to the level where one editor alone is in danger of breaching the 3RR.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I think my phrasing was sloppy. I meant that I don't think discussion is *ever* useless. There is simply no point at which, in my opinion, it is acceptable to resort to edit warring--certainly not to the level where one editor alone is in danger of breaching the 3RR.
I don't disagree with that as a policy of action, but I do in terms of objective principle. Specifically, I think there are many instances where an attempt at discussion is useless in any direct sense, but that we should always try to proceed (at least initially) as though it is not, because we could be wrong in our assumptions of when it will be useless.
In any case, your rephrasing is noted, and if that had been the original phrasing I'd have felt no compunction to comment. Thanks.
-- Chad
Tony Sidaway wrote:
JAY JG said:
But there are many editors (admittedly usually newer ones) who are not committed to these principles, and with them Talk: is often useless. And you'll tend to find those kinds of editors on hot-topic pages.
I've run into people like that, I'm sure we all have. But I really don't understand why you would claim that using talk with newcomers and mavericks is useless.
I don't think that's what was being said at all. My interpretation of phrasing was not that "using talk with newcomers and mavericks is useless," but rather that there is a statistical trend of "useless" effect to discussion with certain demographics. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't try talking to members of such demographics, but rather that one should understand that sometimes such attempts at reasonable discussion are more prone to failure than with other people.
Exactly.
Newcomers need to be handled gently and with understanding, as your aware. Mavericks can only really be dealt with via dispute resolution, which requires us to assume good faith and try to use persuasion in the first instance. Give a troll a chance and he'll hang himself. A maverick with clue can be an asset, up to a point.
I don't see that as actually disputing the statement you quoted at all.
Right again. Unfortunately, I find that Tony often puts meaning into my statements that is unrelated to the actual words I have used, or intent behind them.
Jay.
This is a request for clarification about admins and their powers.
There's been a clear case today and yesterday of an admin abusing his powers (unprotecting a page he wanted to edit), and engaging in what could be argued amounts to vandalism. Complaints about this have met with the response that, though it's agreed that this admin abused his powers, there's nothing that can be done about it, because admins aren't allowed to block other admins for an abuse of power. All editors can do in a case like this, we're being told, is begin the long process of RfCs, mediation, and arbitration.
Regardless of the details of this particular case, is it true that admins are not allowed to block other admins for an abuse of power?
If this is true, how do we go about getting that changed?
Sarah
This is a request for clarification about admins and their powers.
All editors can do in a case like this, we're being told, is begin the long process of RfCs, mediation, and arbitration.
Regardless of the answer to your question, this path need not be a long one, especially not with the energizer bunnies in the new Arbcom.
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:05:28 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This is a request for clarification about admins and their powers.
There's been a clear case today and yesterday of an admin abusing his powers (unprotecting a page he wanted to edit), and engaging in what could be argued amounts to vandalism. Complaints about this have met with the response that, though it's agreed that this admin abused his powers, there's nothing that can be done about it, because admins aren't allowed to block other admins for an abuse of power. All editors can do in a case like this, we're being told, is begin the long process of RfCs, mediation, and arbitration.
Regardless of the details of this particular case, is it true that admins are not allowed to block other admins for an abuse of power?
If this is true, how do we go about getting that changed?
It's not allowed, yes: the blocking policy does not cover abuses of admin powers. In any case it would be pointless to block admins for such reasons, as they can unblock themselves and likely will if they don't think they were abusing their powers. (I can only remember one case of deliberate, admitted abuse of admin powers, and the sysop who did that was trying very hard to make a point about the handling of problematic users.) Then, too, if a sysop is consciously abusing his powers, then what's to stop him from abusing them further in order to unblock himself? Blocking for abuse of sysop powers would be pointless.
Last, I'm not sure unprotecting a page in order to edit it even qualifies as an abuse of admin powers---articles are meant to be edited, and unprotecting a page opens it to editing by all.
--Charles P. ([[en:User:Mirv]])
Charles, I didn't want to have to go into the details of this particular case, because it's not why I'm posting to the board. But in brief, the admin recreated a page that had been deleted after a VfD (a deletion that had been confirmed at a VfU); recreated it again after an admin deleted his first recreation; pasted a fake deletion notice on it in an effort to force a third (fake) vote about the deletion; then when an admin protected the blank page so the first admin couldn't recreate and write on it again, the first admin used his admin power to unprotect it. But admins are not supposed to use their power to protect or unprotect pages they're involved in editing.
Regarding the point you made about them unblocking themselves, if it were possible to block an admin for abuse of power, then if they unblocked themselves, they'd be abusing their powers again, and so could be blocked again. It would actually be a very simple process, perhaps with blocks increasing in time each time they unblocked themselves.
Admins not having the power to block other admins for abuse of power is like the police not being able to take action against an out-of-control police officer. It makes no sense, and I would like to change it, and so my question is how do I start that process.
Sarah
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:30:00 -0500, Charles Podles wrote: if a sysop is consciously abusing his
powers, then what's to stop him from abusing them further in order to unblock himself? Blocking for abuse of sysop powers would be pointless.
Last, I'm not sure unprotecting a page in order to edit it even qualifies as an abuse of admin powers---articles are meant to be edited, and unprotecting a page opens it to editing by all.
--Charles P. ([[en:User:Mirv]])
I am stunned by this logic.
How is this any different from an admin protecting a page so that nobody else can edit it?
RickK
Charles Podles charles.podles@gmail.com wrote: Last, I'm not sure unprotecting a page in order to edit it even qualifies as an abuse of admin powers---articles are meant to be edited, and unprotecting a page opens it to editing by all.
--Charles P. ([[en:User:Mirv]])
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Mark Pellegrini (mapellegrini@comcast.net) [050213 06:31]:
The three revert rule was not meant to be applied mechanically for every person who violates the rule - in fact, the phrasing (which I wrote) makes this clear. Admins are expected to use their discretion when blocking people for violating it, and SHOULD NOT be blocking every person who reverts three times. Just my 2 cents.
It's a pity you didn't vote in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darw... ;-) I wrote the first sentence "The three revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement." I think it's a safe enough rule because it's so easily reversible - getting an even slightly questionable 3RR block reversed is really easy.
- d.