If the autoblocker actually adds additional time to a block just because someone attempts to edit a page before the block is up, then that is a completely bullshit configuration for the block script. Keep in mind what has been happening with blocks as they are used for 3RR, etc: Blocks, originally used only against vandals, are now being used regularly against non vandals (and even sysops) to enforce a rudimentary interpretation of circumstances. The only reason that I ever supported (and promoted) 3RR originally, back when Erik's proposal failed even a Quickpoll, was that it would be enforced equitably -- there are generally two parties and both are often guilty. 3RR was intended to be a protective measure against destructive revert wars, and instead has been turned into a kind punitive measure which often is only unilaterally applied. Some people have gotten into the habit of simply gaming the system, by getting a buddy to assist in tag-teaming someone else --producing an apparent greater culpability on the part of the one individual over the other group. At this point, there is no fine tuning which provides any degree of formal review, and as such the use of blocks against contributors (vs. vandals) has taken on an increasing air of *incivility, in direct contradiction to WP:AGF, and WP:IAR in direct contradiction to WP:DBAD. SV --- "Ben E." &lt;bratsche1(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: (unblock<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&am…) "WP:3RR<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR>violation al-Qaeda<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda> __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 steve v wrote: You know, I might think this was a problem if it weren't for the fact that a blind revert war is never an acceptable way to deal with any kind of content dispute _whatsoever_. If you reverted a content change more than 3 times in 24 hours, you aren't editing the way you're supposed to be. Period. If someone is not blocking fairly, that is their fault, not the fault of the rule. - - Ryan

On 10/5/05, steve v &lt;vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: I'm not sure whether you're asking what we have as a check on enforcement of [[WP:3RR]]. In case you are, that is performed in the first instance by the administrators' noticeboard section [[WP:AN3]]. Wrongful use of the administrator's powers under that rule can be reviewed there. This doesn't prove that 3RR is infallible (actually I find it a useless rule and never have anything to do with it, relying instead on commonsense and public review of my actions) but it does provide a check on abuse of the rule.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote: A few days ago, I noticed a grammatical error in an article which I figured must have been fixed at some point past. Sure enough, looking through the history, I found the point at which the change had occurred. Dubious of the factual accuracy of the change, I reverted it and left a note on the editor's talk page to let them know that I had done so, since there was no source for the claim that was being made. Within a few minutes I recieved a reply, giving a source and telling me that they'd reverted my change. No worries, I thought to myself, so I checked the article and sure enough, the grammatical error was still there. So I went and fixed it. Only in my haste, I "fixed it" in the wrong spot. Within another few minutes, the other party had corrected my change. Four edits by two parties in the space of ten minutes. We discussed our changes (on talk pages and in edit summaries), made one revert each, and ended up fixing the article. Who needs the 3RR when you have common sense? - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

On 10/6/05, Oskar Sigvardsson &lt;oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That's what I saw, too. Perhaps the threat of 3RR was an unseen motivation to encourage everyone to actually try to work it out rather than insist on one's own version. I know it has been for me at least once, so even if I don't get bitten, the guard dog helps secure the property. ;-) It helps me pay attention a little better. (!) -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

On 10/6/05, Michael Turley &lt;michael.turley(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That's what it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, it's far too often used by editors as a club: if someone makes an edit you don't like, maneuver them into being the "first to revert" and then revert-war them until they cross 3RR one step ahead of you, then report them. Bam, he's blocked, and all you have to do to win the edit war for 24 hours is get a friend to revert his last edit. I'm frequently tempted to block BOTH parties in situations like this, one for blocking the 3RR and the other for gaming it. Unfortunately, there's a number of admins who engage in this sort of behavior, and I'm not really interested in getting into a block war or putting up with the whining (and the RFCs) that I'd almost certainly get were I to do this. As a result, I tend to avoid enforcing the 3RR at all. As do a lot of the other admins I talk to. Kelly

On 10/6/05, Michael Turley &lt;michael.turley(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: It's been tried. It is less than popular. -- geni

On 10/6/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm &lt;macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I'm not inclined to care a whole lot. People who hit the 3RR have already gone beyond reasonable editing. Whether they get blocked for 24 hours or a week is not that great of a concern to me. Kelly