[WikiEN-l] 3RR penalty is a block and not a ban -> problems

Mon Jun 27 21:56:01 UTC 2005

Sounds like legalism to me.  Common sense that socks of an editor
blocked for 3RR can be blocked at the very least for any further
reverts (not 3 more, even one more is enough).  Common sense also says
that a 3RR block should not be extended.

Let's not get hung up on pedantic legalistic arguments over whether
3RR is a "block" or  a "ban" or whether or not admins have a "right"
to block or not block.  This is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in
bureacracy.

Kelly

On 6/27/05, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I tried to clarify this on several pages, e.g. on
> [[Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy]], but I got no answer so far.
> 
> I'll try to be short:
> 
> - For a 3RR violation an admin can *block* a user but cannot ban him
> - The rules for blocking don't mention that the block can be extended
> or known socks of the same user can be blocked if the block is
> violated
> 
> Therefore, a user blocked under 3RR can argue that:
> - No admin can extend the block after 24 hours if he doesn't continue
> the revert war
>   (Since this is an option only for bans but not blocks)
> - No admin can block him when he returns through a known sock
> 
> I think this wasn't the intention of those, who formulated the rules
> and the penalties for evading the block after a 3RR violation should
> be extended based on WP:BAN.
> 
> I've learned that several admins do interpret the policies this way,
> i.e. that they have the right to block the known sock and have the
> right to extend the block.
> 
> I think this should be fixed.
> 
> Thanks,
> [[User:Nyenyec]]
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>