[WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

[slimvirgin at gmail.com]

I had a similar experience recently, where an editor and I disagreed
about some material. We both made a number of edits (additions,
deletions, supplying references). When I made my edits, I restored
some of the word flow and sentences I preferred, and deleted sentences
without references; when the other editor made his edits, he did the
same. The article mutated toward a version we could both live with,
and the editing stopped.

About an hour later, without warning, we both found ourselves blocked
for violating 3RR. It was my first offense, and I believe it was the
other editor's first offense too. After the block was in place, each
time we even looked at a page, the block was automatically extended,
which made it appear to other admins that we were acting in bad faith,
trying to made edits while blocked.

Reviewing the edit history, I can see why the admin thought they were
complex reverts, but I can also see why the other editor and I thought
we were editing, not reverting.

I feel that this business of what counts as a "complex revert" needs
to be more carefully defined. I also feel that a warning should always
be placed on the editor's Talk page before a block; and the block
should only be instituted if the editor ignores the warning.

If admins assume that editors who appear to have violated 3RR intended
to do so, and block them without warning, then those admins are not
assuming good faith, which is supposed to be one of Wikipedia's most
important policies. The "mens rea" of the editors has to count for
something, or else the good-faith policy may as well be  scrapped.

Slim

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 02:13:38 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
They achieve this compromise by gradually mutating
> the disputed text until both sides are happy with the result. You
> could see it as a negotiation in which both parties take turn placing
> proposals and counterproposals.
> 
> Whether Silverback changed his proposal or not is not clear.
> Silverback thought he changed it, you thought he didn't. I think he
> did change it and that is was not a plain revert. The number of words
> in the paragraph increased from 84 to 132 which is an extra 57%.