[WikiEN-l] More thoughts on the 3-revert rule

Sun Feb 13 18:30:18 UTC 2005

Bill Konrad (bkonrad123 at sbcglobal.net) [050213 02:28]:

> I was blocked yesterday for violating the 3RR. I don't fault Geni for doing 
> this, as it was within the letter of the 3RR. However, I have questions 
> about what the intent of the rule is. Is the rule intended as punishment of 
> any technical violation of 3RR, even where the conflict causing the reverts 
> has been resolved? Or is it supposed to be a mechanism for putting an end 
> (or at least a cease-fire) to active edit wars?

As the [[WP:3RR]] policy page says, it's intended to forestall sterile edit
wars.

> However, the block was not imposed until 02:23, 12 Feb 2005, some several 
> hours after the end of any disagreement between me and Netoholic.
> So to my mind, this raises some questions -- Should the current state of 
> the "edit war" be taken into account when imposing a block for violation of 
> 3RR? If whatever dispute was at the root of the reversion has been 
> resolved, does it make sense to impose a block as punishment for earlier 
> violations (and especially as this was not a case of a repeat edit warrior 
> who perhaps might need a slap on the hands as a reminder)? I mean, I 
> certainly don't see myself as an edit warrior, and I'd be very surprised if 
> anyone else saw me as such.

I'm not sure I'd bother placing one so far after the event. But the 3RR is
supposed to be such a silly thing to violate that it can operate as an
electric fence. So a good thing to do would be to email the blocking admin
(or another admin), apologise for getting taunted by the perceived
foolishness of another into violating it, and asking to be unblocked. Or
something like that.

- d.