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