[WikiEN-l] Bad And Wrong Policy/Procedure/Guideline

[David Boothroyd]

The three revert rule is now bad policy, specifically in the way it
has been allowed to evolve.

Firstly, it is badly named: if three reverts is not an entitlement
then it should not be called that, and in practice three reverts or
fewer, or over a longer period, have got editors blocked under the
general provision to block disruptive users.

Secondly, a 'revert' is not clearly defined. Lots of things which
aren't reverts are included, while plenty that is a revert is
excluded.

Thirdly, enforcing admins rarely look intelligently at what is
actually happening in an article. It is very easy to find that
POV pushers use it to enforce their position.

Fourthly, it is being enforced in a way that discourages compromise.
Editors who always revert back to their version are treated just
the same as editors who continue to disagree but propose compromise
wording instead.

Fifthly, despite the complicated and questionable interpretation
involved in working out whether the rule is engaged, there is no way
in practice to expunge the block log where the interpretation is
proved inaccurate.

Sixthly, the fact that new anonymous or IP users can claim ignorance
of the rule and be unblocked while experienced editors cannot, means
that enforcement actually discriminates against the experienced
Wikipedian old hands.
-- 
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)