[WikiEN-l] ethical need to reform the 3RR rule for even-handedness

[MAURICE FRANK]

Hi, I'm Tern and 83.65.67.99. This is an overall
questioning of how the 3RR block rule can work, that
leads to a reform proposal. It's more than just about
a present row.

The 3RR rule can be abused if a page comes under group
targetting that outnumbers the defence or targets one
person. Wikipedia's ethicality needs to be protected
by modifying the 3RR rule to prevent this.

This issue is presented on the evidence of the chaos
presently overwhelming the article [[Asperger's
Syndrome]], where an outbreak of really spiteful
personally targetted bullying can be read on the talk
page since Aug 18. I don't mind the 3RR block being
used to see if it cools the situation. But - if 1
person gets a block and the group organised against
him don't get a block, because no single one of them
has committed 3RR, then bullies are rewarded and their
attack on the page gets protected and encouraged. This
has just happened to me.

The case involves an issue of child cruelty related to
the medical subject of Asperger Syndrome, which the
attackers want to veto any mention of at all. The
record of the argument had been of them solidly
refusing either to add a converse view to the page or
to attempt to find any mutually neutral wording. I
kept asking them to do both, and my edits were not
simple reversions but new adaptations but because I
did not lie down and accept them attacking the page
every few minutes by organised force of numbers it was
me who ended up with a 2-day block under 3RR. You see
how the balance of power was unbalanced?

The admin who made the block said it was on higher
instructions and he wasn't personally even in favour
of it. Yet I can see the point of trying to bring some
calm to the situation by trying to see if some
reasoned discussion takes place (it isn't) while the
contenders are silenced. So, I told him, I am
''actually not contesting my block'' provided all the
opponents I had  during the preceding day have been
blocked as well. Only if they have not been, am I
contesting my block, on grounds of one-sidedness
towards a person already being victimised concertedly
- and if they get a block put on them now, belatedly,
I won't claim that mine is wrong. My edits were not
simple reversions but attempts at constructive new
edits incorporating others' feelings, and only the
opponents' POV gets favoured by them each having a
personal right to 3RR which they can pool.

How then is Wikipedia to guard against having its
ethic of neutral content destroyed by the 3RR rule
working in favour of bullying campaigns and organised
frequent attacks on pages? An ethical concern for the
entire nature of Wikipedia and reform proposal to
solve the anomaly, arises from this case.It should be
circulated to the entire list of contactable users for
comment, so it can be put into practice straight away.

Proposal: simply enact
 
(i) the 3RR rule also to apply when different people
make the same revert, exactly the same as when 1
person does. Hence a group of users all editing on the
same side of an argument will be subject to the rule,
collectively, on equal terms to an individual.
(ii) When a 2-sided high-frequency edit war is
happening, if a 3RR block is made it must be made
simultaneously on every person on both sides who took
part during the preceding day. Admins at all levels
with discretion whether to apply a 3RR block, shall
not have discretion to apply one to only 1 side of
such a dispute.
(iii) ''Except'' as part of such a 2-sided parity, a
reverter who does not make simple reverts to the past
but writes new adaptations can't be given a 3RR block,
unless - There is a constructive editorial discussion
in progress, that is about content not personal
attacks towards that person's side, and about
factuality not an insistence on simply deleting an
item on grounds of not thinking it important.

Studying this case, do you see that without these rule
changes, Wikipedia can be dragged into giving
non-neutral positions with content censored by the
agenda of a group who keep editing the same way? and
on serious issues of how children are treated? On the
basis of this case that has just happened, I contend
that Wikipedia visibly owes to its members to make
this rule change.





	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com