[WikiEN-l] 3RR, a proposed update

[geni]

On 1/20/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> In response to an earlier message I sent, "Cleared as filed" and me,
> Dzonatas, have discussed the issue somewhat. I've been unblocked early.
> There is a concern I still have that isn't directed at "Cleared as filed."
>
> I wrote the previous mail in haste, obviously. I only had a couple
> minutes to spare and wanted to take advantage of time that the block
> started.
>
> The 3RR policy is valid. By pragmatic review, not every admin blocks
> under the same conditions. This gives the effect of favoritism, either
> personal or political.
>

No one ever seriously accused me of that back when I inforced the 3RR.

> I have many thought over many ideas in prevention, but I'll give just
> one that is do-able.
>
> If a user is under blocked under 3RR, allow a button to appear under the
>   users page that directs the user to the policy. The button questions
> the user to agree to stay in accordance with policy and not edit the
> specific page for 24 hours. If the user agrees and presses the button,
> the block is undone. This allows the user to continue to edit other
> pages. If the user presses the button and resumes to edit the specific
> page, the block is reinstated for a duration longer than 24 hours.
>

I'm thinking no. A 24 hour block basicaly foreces the editor to sleep
before they can edit again.
> In the incidence with "Cleared as filed", I felt I was blocked
> inappropriately. Other users now use such block as means for character
> assassination. The above idea could allow an user to continue to talk on
> the discussion page, which would show that the 3RR is not punitive by
> default and prevent character assassination.
>

I've blocked everyone from anons to arbcom memebers under the 3RR. I
don't think anyone has ever been able to use it for character
assassination.

> In the same incidence, another user continued to show disruption by the
> use of tags to delete images that I have installed. The sources and
> copyright status of the images were obvious enough by guidelines;
> however, the user wanted to press the technicality of it. This user
> reported the block for which "Cleared as filed" instated. It would seem
> possible by this example that a user is able to game the system, get a
> user blocked, and add content under speedy deletion. This is why I sent
> the message in haste to report "Cleared as filed", as it would help make
> notice to not be so hasty to install a block and allow discussion.
>
> Obviously, not every admin has lots of time to investigate and often
> blocks on "the wrong version." This update would allow an admin to
> install a block and let the user to decide to unblock early if they
> agree to adhere to temporary terms, which is simply to not edit the
> specific article for a day. This continues to encourage discussion.
>
> Respectfully,
> Jonathan

The rule doesn't care like things such as the wrong version. The whole
point is thart you make no judement about who was right and who was
wrong.


--
geni