Michael Turley wrote:
On 7/6/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "A. Nony Mouse" temoforcomments4@hotmail.com
I hereby propose an alternate policy: Page-based 3RR. If the same phrase is reverted from a page three times in 24 hours, then that PAGE shall be locked for a week and all editors involved in the reverts shall receive a 12-hour block to cool off.
What a bad idea; it allows any editor to hold pages hostage essentially indefinitely, even if opposed by dozens of other editors.
Jay.
Perhaps you could add your thoughts for improvement instead of solely criticism?
If we kept the "standard" 3RR in addition to a new page based revert rule, one editor certainly could not hold pages hostage. I didn't see anything in the previous proposal that suggested throwing away the old (but actually pretty young) 3RR rule.
There is no sense in trying to "improve" an unsalvageably bad idea. Also, a much better solution has already been proposed at [[Wikipedia:Per-article blocking]], where I'm glad to see you recently added yourself to the list of supporters. All that remains is for somebody to write the necessary code.
To that end, and in the spirit of encouraging people to do constructive things instead of just griping, I have an offer to make. If any user who gets blocked from editing would like to submit valid code for this feature to http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/, email me a link to your feature request and I promise to unblock you. This includes anyone, even "A Nony Mouse" (though he'd have to tell us who he is to take advantage of the offer).
Security on Wikipedia works by locking things down as little as possible, and then only when practically compelled to do so. So the message I would give blocked users is this: Look, even though you were getting into some trouble, we would be more than happy to give you the run of (nearly) all of Wikipedia if you'd just do the necessary work to make sure you won't cause problems.
--Michael Snow