[WikiEN-l] Re: Illegitimate block.

[slimvirgin at gmail.com]

Smoddy, clear cases of vandalism aside, admins are not allowed to
choose which version of the page to protect. They are meant to protect
the latest version.

Suppose you find a page that contains a serious, unreferenced claim
that seems to be false, and which is making the article look stupid.
You revert to an earlier version ( your revert #1), and you ask for a
reputable source (a citation) on the Talk page. Another editor reverts
back to the unreferenced claim (his revert #1) and doesn't respond on
Talk. You revert again (your revert #2), and you ask again for a
citation. The other editor reverts again (his revert #2) and ignores
your request on Talk. You revert once more (your revert #3) and you
beg for discussion on Talk. He ignores you and reverts again (his
revert #3).

At that point, you're stuck and so is Wikipedia. If you ask for page
protection, the admins will have to protect the unreferenced claim
version. If you revert again, you'll be blocked. If you risk it
anyway, and the other editor responds in kind, you'll both be blocked.

The 3RR violation rule is an attempt to be neutral between versions
and between editors. The rule therefore ignores quality of content and
quality of editors. The editor who is trying to write a high-quality
article is treated the same as the editor who is editing with a
reckless disregard for the truth. That is unfair, and it is damaging
to Wikipedia.

Slim

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:35:21 +0000, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is, of course, up to that admin
> to make the decision about which version to protect, which could
> potentially be a problem.