[WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

[Skyring]

On 7/7/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4 at 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.

-- 
Peter in Canberra