[WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

[Michael Turley]

On 7/6/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
> >
> >On 7/6/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >From: "A. Nony Mouse" <temoforcomments4 at 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.

-- 
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused