[WikiEN-l] Re: Proposed alternate 3RR policy

[A. Nony Mouse]

> > >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?
>
>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.
>
>--
>Michael Turley
>User:Unfocused

Thank you Michael.

I would have responded earlier, but it's a real pain in the ass to be NOT 
GETTING THE MAILING LIST MESSAGES thanks to a power-mad dictator who 
"tweaks" a setting such that an account looks like it's "subscribed" but 
gets no emails back.

If this message does not reach the list soon, could you please forward it?

No, I do NOT suggest throwing out the old 3RR, though its modification is 
necessary. I REALLY hope that per-page blocking passes and that 3RR can be 
modified to be a per-page block rather than a whole-Wikipedia block; too 
many times recently we've seen instances where someone makes a deliberately 
controversial edit, KNOWING that another editor who frequents the page will 
revert it, and then deliberately edit-wars from that point solely to goad 
their opponent into a 3RR violation and get them blocked from the whole of 
Wikipedia.

MY suggestion was intended to deal with situations where there is a 
large-scale edit war with revert warriors calling "reinforcements" - no 
*single* editor breaking 3RR, but an obvious revert/edit war occurring with 
multiple editors chiming in, each contributing their three reverts and then 
letting the next person take over the reverting.

Perhaps a rephrasing is in order:

Page-based 3RR. If the same phrase is reverted from a page more than three 
times in 24 hours and three or more editors are involved in the dispute, 
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. This policy shall not 
apply to the reversion of simple vandalism.

The idea is as follows:
(1) PREVENT Revert-warring by force of numbers. "We have more guys than you 
so we decide what the page says" cannot be allowed to be policy, but 
functionally it is right now the way 3RR stands.

(2) ENCOURAGE good-faith editing and DISCOURAGE placing deliberately 
controversial edits for the purpose of provoking 3RR violations. It's 
obvious enough when such conduct is occurring, but edit warriors on sex- and 
religion-based articles have taken edit-warring (while avoiding 3RR 
violations) to a fine art.

This policy would make edit-warriors who have become skilled at provoking 
OTHERS into 3RR violations think twice before doing so, because (as is 
SUPPOSED to happen in the current 3RR listings regarding users who try to 
game the system, but never does) there would be legitimate consequences for 
BOTH sides of the problem.

(3) Timing: Someone mentioned (I forget who) that they consider a "base time 
frame" for a block or lock to be a bad thing. I'll mention that we have 
plenty already in place: 3RR is a 24-hour block, Vandalism is a 12-hour 
block, etc. As Admins always have the option to shorten this lock *should 
the situation be resolved on talk page sooner*, I don't see this as a 
downside - quite the opposite, it encourages the users to work their 
differences out.

If one side is deliberately operating in bad faith and just trying to keep 
the article locked, then that's when you go to RFC or Arbitration on the 
matter. While I disagree with most of ArbCom's behavior recently, this is 
one instance where I think even the current ArbCom members would be 
hard-pressed to make the wrong decision.

And again, IF such a situation occurs, I would hope that the remedy would be 
a per-page block rather than a wholesale Wikipedia block once we get 
per-page blocking passed.

A. Nony Mouse

_________________________________________________________________
Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership! http://match.msn.ie