[WikiEN-l] 3RR policy proposal: No "Gotcha" rule

Sun Jun 25 10:59:29 UTC 2006

G'day Warren,

>>WP:3RR was changed (without there first being consensus) back in April so
>>that reverts count towards the 3RR even if they are unrelated. This has
>>resulted in some editors playing "gotcha" by invoking the 3RR without first
>>giving a warning.

I suspect --- though I could very well be wrong --- that this was in 
response to an ArbCom ruling.  ArbCom have clarified 3RR in response to 
wiki-lawyering a couple of times now (even going so far as to define "a 
revert", because certain individuals were trying to twist the English 
language until they could argue they'd done nothing wrong).

> I'd like to propose the following exception to the 3RR policy:
> 
> Exception:
> 
> Lack of warning
> 
> A 3RR ban cannot be imposed against an editor who has not been warned that
> he or she is in danger of violating the 3RR. A ban can only be imposed when
> an editor violates the 3RR after receiving a warning even if he or she has
> already tecnically violated the 3RR prior to receiving a warning.

Good grief, no.

I agree that the 3RR should not be used as a "gotcha".  Users who were 
not aware of 3RR should not be severely punished for their ignorance.  I 
try to avoid blocking "for the 3RR" in the first place --- we use blocks 
to put a halt to edit wars, and this may be done whether 3RR comes into 
play or not.

New users can't be expected to know about 3RR, but they sure as hell 
ought to know how not to be a dick, and that includes not edit-warring. 
  A *short* "time out" block and a note that there's a page at 
[[WP:3RR]] which prescribes the absolute maximum number --- but remember 
a 3RR violation is sufficient but not necessary for a block --- of 
reverts per day works fine, for editors normally willing to play nicely 
with others. who just got carried away and went too far in one instance.

I don't like the practice of "aha!  3RR!  Now you'll be blocked!"  I 
don't like blocking without warning.   I don't like revert warring.  I 
don't like obnoxious editing practices.  Believe it or not, there's a 
manner in which an admin can behave without any of these things I --- 
and I assume you --- dislike being allowed to occur.  It's called *using 
his damn brain*.

If an admin is making poor decisions, then that admin needs to be 
counselled on how to be a better admin (or, if worst comes to worst, 
de-sysopped).  Don't remove the flexibility of current Wikipedia 
practices and inflict even more complex and unnecessary rules on all 
editors and admins for the sake of a couple who don't know what they're 
doing --- teach the ones who are wrong, instead.

We *do not* need *more* policy.

-- 
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse