Seems to be.
Happens all the time on Islam-related and Sex-relate articles all the time - the moment certain editors start an edit war and think they're going to get close to breaking 3RR, they start sending off messages to sympathetic editors asking them to join in the revert war.
It's also how we get most of the sockpuppet complaints - there are a number of users on Wikipedia whose first instinct when challenged is to scream that their opponent "must" be a sockpuppet of some other user who previously opposed them either on the same article or somewhere else.
And yes, for reference, 3RR does indeed essentially mean that if two editors decide an article should look a certain way, and only one opposes them, then the two editors "win" unless more editors come along or it winds up in Arbitration.
Yet another case of seemingly "neutral" policies being a disaster.
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 do you think? I know it's not perfect (it still doesn't address WHICH version should be locked to, but that's a losing decision either way) but it gets us away from the current "hey if we get one more guy than they have then we can provoke an edit war, get them all 3RR blocked, and we're free and clear to make the article say what we want it to say" nonsense and into a more neutral stance.
A. Nony Mouse
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com Reply-To: Skyring skyring@gmail.com To: temoforcomments4@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 06:49:14 +1000
"I should read the rules more closely. In that case I will revert you twice a day, for the rest of history if needs be. Plus I have more allies than you, so your attempts to restalinise this article must fail."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKhmer_Rouge&diff=148359...
Is truth really determined by how many allies an editor has?
This particular editor seems to be able to abuse other editors at will, with no more than an "admonition".
_________________________________________________________________ Millions of quality singles are online now - click to meet them! http://match.msn.ie
On 7/6/05, A. Nony Mouse temoforcomments4@hotmail.com wrote:
Seems to be.
Happens all the time on Islam-related and Sex-relate articles all the time - the moment certain editors start an edit war and think they're going to get close to breaking 3RR, they start sending off messages to sympathetic editors asking them to join in the revert war.
It's also how we get most of the sockpuppet complaints - there are a number of users on Wikipedia whose first instinct when challenged is to scream that their opponent "must" be a sockpuppet of some other user who previously opposed them either on the same article or somewhere else.
And yes, for reference, 3RR does indeed essentially mean that if two editors decide an article should look a certain way, and only one opposes them, then the two editors "win" unless more editors come along or it winds up in Arbitration.
Yet another case of seemingly "neutral" policies being a disaster.
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 do you think? I know it's not perfect (it still doesn't address WHICH version should be locked to, but that's a losing decision either way) but it gets us away from the current "hey if we get one more guy than they have then we can provoke an edit war, get them all 3RR blocked, and we're free and clear to make the article say what we want it to say" nonsense and into a more neutral stance.
A. Nony Mouse
Interesting, but impractical in current form.
The biggest problem I see is the 12 hour blocks for all editors involved. I don't want someone else's second, third, or fourth later revert penalizing the first user for a good faith edit. It would introduce a collective punishment culture that's worse than whatever low level of individual punishment culture we have now.
Second, locking an article for a week seems about 6 1/2 or more days too long. Between one and four hours would probably get the point across well enough. That's the real goal, isn't it? To let everyone know it's time to cool off a bit?
On 7/7/05, A. Nony Mouse temoforcomments4@hotmail.com wrote:
And yes, for reference, 3RR does indeed essentially mean that if two editors decide an article should look a certain way, and only one opposes them, then the two editors "win" unless more editors come along or it winds up in Arbitration.
Yet another case of seemingly "neutral" policies being a disaster.
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 do you think? I know it's not perfect (it still doesn't address WHICH version should be locked to, but that's a losing decision either way) but it gets us away from the current "hey if we get one more guy than they have then we can provoke an edit war, get them all 3RR blocked, and we're free and clear to make the article say what we want it to say" nonsense and into a more neutral stance.
Well, I didn't want to be in the position of publicly criticising a specific editor, but I guess you've placed me there now, so I'll add that it isn't just this one editor who relies on the gang mentality.
I think your proposal has merit. It is the reversions to the article that matter, not who made them, but I think that the two editors who make the initial change and the first revert should be exempted from any general blocking (unless, of course, they keep on reverting) otherwise we'd never make any progress.
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.
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.
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
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?
Perhaps your suggestions regarding criticism would be better directed to the alternately querulous and abusive individuals who don't seem to be able to do much on Wikipedia except get themselves blocked, taken before the Arbitration Committee, or banned, but regularly inundate this list with complaints about how nothing on Wikipedia is working because of the admin cliques who are constantly abusing their powers.
Oh, and here's my thought for improvement: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
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.
A page that is constantly kept locked by the actions of one individual against a huge consensus of other editors is one held hostage. See [[Apartheid]] for an example.
Jay.
Let me try to follow your logic:
1. The post contains criticism of an admin. Therefore: 2. It has no merit, since by definition, criticism of an admin is either querulous or abusive and should be ignored.
Well done! Great thinking!
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
On 7/6/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: "A. Nony Mouse"
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?
Perhaps your suggestions regarding criticism would be better directed to the alternately querulous and abusive individuals who don't seem to be able to do much on Wikipedia except get themselves blocked, taken before the Arbitration Committee, or banned, but regularly inundate this list with complaints about how nothing on Wikipedia is working because of the admin cliques who are constantly abusing their powers.
Oh, and here's my thought for improvement: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
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.
A page that is constantly kept locked by the actions of one individual against a huge consensus of other editors is one held hostage. See [[Apartheid]] for an example.
Jay.
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
From: Norath Norath norath2005@yahoo.com
Let me try to follow your logic:
- The post contains criticism of an admin.
Therefore: 2. It has no merit, since by definition, criticism of an admin is either querulous or abusive and should be ignored.
Well done! Great thinking!
Let me try to follow your logic. 1. Make up a strawman argument. Then: 2. Easily defeat the strawman argument.
Well done! Great thinking!
Jay.
On 7/6/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
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?
Perhaps your suggestions regarding criticism would be better directed to the alternately querulous and abusive individuals who don't seem to be able to do much on Wikipedia except get themselves blocked, taken before the Arbitration Committee, or banned, but regularly inundate this list with complaints about how nothing on Wikipedia is working because of the admin cliques who are constantly abusing their powers.
In case you haven't been reading them, my suggestions have been directed to those people as well lately. I surmise that this may be related to why we got a good suggestion from an email account that has been doing more complaining than suggesting lately. I suggest you drop any stereotypes you may hold and respond with a real contribution when a real suggestion arrives, rather than being solely negative and dismissive.
Oh, and here's my thought for improvement: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
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.
A page that is constantly kept locked by the actions of one individual against a huge consensus of other editors is one held hostage. See [[Apartheid]] for an example.
Jay.
Why do you permit the hostage of the article, rather than addressing the single editor? How is it possible that a single user can keep a page locked when he can only revert 3 times before being blocked, yet the "huge consensus" could certainly revert many times that number of times? What policies or procedures do you suggest to correct this existing deficiency that isn't helped by the "ain't broke, don't fix it" policy now in place?
--
Please don't criticize people for searching for alternate paths to a solution, especially if they're people who you don't think have contributed in a positive manner recently. We should be encouraging proper behavior at every opportunity.
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com I suggest you drop any stereotypes you may hold and respond with a real contribution when a real suggestion arrives, rather than being solely negative and dismissive.
I suggest you stop insinuating that I disliked that suggestion because of the source, and acccept the fact that I thought it was a terrible idea simply based on its own merits (or lack thereof). And I also suggest that you accept the fact that I will be negative and dismissive on any policy proposals which I think are terrible ideas.
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.
A page that is constantly kept locked by the actions of one individual against a huge consensus of other editors is one held hostage. See [[Apartheid]] for an example.
Jay.
Why do you permit the hostage of the article, rather than addressing the single editor? How is it possible that a single user can keep a page locked when he can only revert 3 times before being blocked, yet the "huge consensus" could certainly revert many times that number of times?
Did you look at the history? He uses variable IPs; whenever he's blocked, he simply reboots and gets another. He's used at least 11 userids and 30 IPs so far.
What policies or procedures do you suggest to correct this existing deficiency that isn't helped by the "ain't broke, don't fix it" policy now in place?
I suggest broader admin powers regarding obvious trolls. But I don't imagine that will go down too well with a number of people on this list.
Please don't criticize people for searching for alternate paths to a solution, especially if they're people who you don't think have contributed in a positive manner recently. We should be encouraging proper behavior at every opportunity.
Please don't describe my criticisms of ideas as criticisms of people, and please don't tell me to stop doing things I haven't done in the first place. My initial statement was solely about the idea itself, and described quite clearly what I didn't like about it; I neither said nor implied about the individual making the suggestion. You, on the other hand, wrongly assumed I disliked the idea because of its source, and criticized me, not my response. You should first model "proper behaviour" before encouraging it in others.
Jay.
On 7/6/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com I suggest you drop any stereotypes you may hold and respond with a real contribution when a real suggestion arrives, rather than being solely negative and dismissive.
I suggest you stop insinuating that I disliked that suggestion because of the source, and acccept the fact that I thought it was a terrible idea simply based on its own merits (or lack thereof). And I also suggest that you accept the fact that I will be negative and dismissive on any policy proposals which I think are terrible ideas.
Being dismissive about any idea is unproductive, and that's why I suggested you consider a different approach. Being dismissive projects the wrong image, especially from anyone who is an admin. You are entirely correct that I was overly broad in my criticism of you. I apologize.
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.
A page that is constantly kept locked by the actions of one individual against a huge consensus of other editors is one held hostage. See [[Apartheid]] for an example.
Why do you permit the hostage of the article, rather than addressing the single editor? How is it possible that a single user can keep a page locked when he can only revert 3 times before being blocked, yet the "huge consensus" could certainly revert many times that number of times?
Did you look at the history? He uses variable IPs; whenever he's blocked, he simply reboots and gets another. He's used at least 11 userids and 30 IPs so far.
I asked because I didn't know the answer. I will try to help think up a viable solution.
What policies or procedures do you suggest to correct this existing deficiency that isn't helped by the "ain't broke, don't fix it" policy now in place?
I suggest broader admin powers regarding obvious trolls. But I don't imagine that will go down too well with a number of people on this list.
As long as they're dealt out with a courteous, polite explanation, I'd support a lot more than you might expect. What harms the project, in my opinion, is not the punishments themselves, but the curt attitudes of some administrators, and the lack of patient explanations. Most people don't usually mind taking responsibility for their actions, as long as they are treated with respect in the process.
Please don't criticize people for searching for alternate paths to a solution, especially if they're people who you don't think have contributed in a positive manner recently. We should be encouraging proper behavior at every opportunity.
Please don't describe my criticisms of ideas as criticisms of people, and please don't tell me to stop doing things I haven't done in the first place. My initial statement was solely about the idea itself, and described quite clearly what I didn't like about it; I neither said nor implied about the individual making the suggestion. You, on the other hand, wrongly assumed I disliked the idea because of its source, and criticized me, not my response. You should first model "proper behaviour" before encouraging it in others.
Jay.
I see no reason why anyone has to be perfect before suggesting improvements to anyone else. Instead, I think we can build a virtuous circle, if everyone is willing to assume good faith of the other instead of taking offense.
However, I made a very poor assumption about your motives. I apologize again. Thank you for pointing out the errors in my last email politely. As proof of my apology, I offer to make three good faith referenced, content contribution edits to any articles in Wikipedia you choose. Just name the article(s) you want improved.
On 7/7/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I think it would be implicit.
I don't agree with locking a page for a set period of time, especially if the change is a small one or the page is under development and only a small section is controversial. By way of example, the dispute could be over something like the BC/BCE problem and everything else in the article is non-contentious.
Perhaps a page should be locked while the dispute is sorted out, perhaps not. It really depends on the circumstances, and as it stands it's up the admins to use common sense (or whatever else) to make a decision on this. I can't see any reason to change that.
The idea behind the 3RR is to bring edit wars to a halt by blocking out one or two editors in a dispute. But the problem is that victory will go to whoever can whistle up more editors, and in theory we could get edit wars going on for tens of reverts, with no individual editor reverting more than a couple of times per day, and I presume that this already occurs in some instances, notably religion, sex or politics.
More to the point, the final shape of the article will depend not on truth or NPOV or some other wikivirtue, but on sheer numbers, and I can't see this as being right and proper.