Too true. While double standards are not a good thing, sometimes discretion is really useful. Blocking a really good and long-term contributor over a one-off 3RR violation is madness. If it happens a few times, then that may be justified, but else it just serves to infuriate and potentially encourage them to quit the project. -- ambi

And how many users are given just a warning on their first offence at WP:AN3?

In my experience, just about every one. Jay.

That doesn't invalidate what I said; most people who violate the 3RR are fairly new, and are warned. Admin 3RR violations are few and far between. Jay.

On 6/20/05, jfdwolff(a)doctors.org.uk <jfdwolff(a)doctors.org.uk> wrote: user doing something another doesn't like (with or without actual policy violations) but there is a breach of civility and resultant offense in almost every instance. Not always. I remeber being involved in one disspute where both side were civil. I belive it was solved by the boredom method in the end. administrators are blocked over anything, and I find it hard to believe that a valuable contributor like RickK should be blocked without a polite warning or an offer for help. Without insisting on double standards for administrators, I think long-term contributors, who have spent months working on improving the project and know the ropes, should be protected against people who come crashing into Wikipedia with an agenda to push and an axe to grind. They are. However the 3RR as decided by the comunity makes no such distinction. Do you really want to increase its subjectiveness? -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l