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

Fri Jun 23 14:57:35 UTC 2006

On 6/23/06, Warren Blanco <fireislandparadise at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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'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.
> ----
> This policy is already implied on ANI:3RR which states:
> "If you find yourself in a revert war, it is a good idea to ensure that the
> "other side" is aware of the 3RR, especially if they are new, by leaving a
> warning about WP:3RR <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR> on their talk
> page. Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been
> warned."
>
> Unfortunately, admins seem increasingly willing to block without regard to
> warnings, a practiced that assumes bad faith.

On the contrary, the practice is to always warn new editors when they
have violated 3RR, and offer them the chance to revert themselves and
avoid any sanction. However, when people have been blocked for 3RR
before, or even clearly warned about 3RR before, then it's not bad
faith to assume they are fully aware of their actions; rather, it is
commonsense to assume they know what they're doing, and are willing to
accept the consequences.

Jay.