Let me try to follow your logic:
1. The post contains criticism of an admin.
Therefore:
2. It has no merit, since by definition, criticism of
an admin is either querulous or abusive and should be
ignored.
Well done! Great thinking!
--- JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Michael
Turley <michael.turley(a)gmail.com>
On 7/6/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: "A. Nony Mouse"
<temoforcomments4(a)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.
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!