[WikiEN-l] Re: Hi

Wed Jul 6 22:44:33 UTC 2005

>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.

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.