[WikiEN-l] The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed

Mon Jan 17 15:09:37 UTC 2005

Slim writes:
> One of the problems with 3RR-policy enforcement 
> is that admins are supposed to treat equally the 
> editor who is inserting an unreferenced, 
> unsubstantiated claim, and the editor who is 
> trying to get rid of that claim. One is violating 
> [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] policy, while the other
> is trying to enforce it. Yet both are blocked. 
> If the editor trying to enforce policy isn't allowed
> to violate 3RR, then s/he must go through dispute 
> resolution; put up an RfC (which rarely brings 
> useful results); or apply for mediation (which 
> can take months to arrange). Meanwhile the 
> nonsense sits there for 24 hours; then maybe 
> there's another brief flurry of reverts, then it 
> sits there for another 24 hours; and this can go
> on for weeks, until the less determined editor backs off.
> If the process takes priority over the product,
> that's fine. 

Right - and the process should never take precedence over
the product. We must remember that the goal of Wikipedia is
to produce a trusted, accurate, free encyclopedia.  The
goal has never been to make a list of rules to blindly
follow for their own sake.

That's why we have group discussions, and don't enforce
policy with 'bots.

> But if it's the production of an accurate encylopedia
> that is the priority, then this is not fine.
> Surely, for this reason, when looking at 3RR 
> violations, admins should be allowed to take into
> account who was violating Wikipedia's editorial
> content policies and who was trying to preserve them.

Thank you for putting into words what I was hoping someone
would say. I agree wholeheartedly.  Some people make 3+
reverts (effectively a fourth or more reverts) in order to
damage Wikipedia, or to blatantly violate our NPOV policy. 
Long-time trusted Wikipedia contributors on occasions have
to fix this damage, which sometimes requires reverts. 
Blindly following the 3RR policy without taking context
into account is not sensible; it gives an edge to vandals
and POV-pushers.

If our goal is to create an accurate encyclopedia, then we
are obligated to use some common sense in deciding when to
punish someone for violating the 3RR rule...or when to say
"Good job, you stopped this damage, and now the calvary can
come in and prevent further damage from the person you are
dealing with."

Smoddy writes:
> If an editor has reverted a page three times in a 24 hour
> period, with the exception of **blatant** vandalism, they

> should be blocked. Period. This ensures even-handedness. 

No, this does not ensure even-handedness. It only ensures
that trouble-makers are given a way to effectively cause
enough trouble to ban or block geunine and trusted
contributors.  Blindly following rules for the sake of
following rules is an anathema to every legal and
rule-based system in the world, whether political,
religious or technical. We should not be
Wikipedia-fundamentalists.  Surely Slim is correct in
saying that we need to allow common-sense, at least on
occasion.

Sincerely,

Robert (RK)

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250