[WikiEN-l] Newbie biting, the 3RR, and improper labeling of vandalism

[Stephen Bain]

On 9/9/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would be improper not to block both. Vandalism doesn't include "edits
> which I believe to be against consensus", and it's pretty clear that
> Mm555 was doing nothing which could be legitimately considered
> vandalism.

The three-revert rule says "simple and obvious vandalism" for
precisely this reason. Only actions for which there could be no
explanation other than vandalism, like inserting gibberish or blanking
a page, meet this standard. Actual content edits, even if they are
contrary to any pre-existing consensus, do not meet this standard.

> While it seems a block at this time would likely be punitive
> rather than preventative, it needs to be clarified that, firstly, an
> involved admin shouldn't have made the call, and secondly, "He's going
> against consensus!" is -not- a valid reason to violate 3RR.

Yes, there's no need for more blocks now. The blocking admin will
learn his lesson from this mistake and remember that in the future,
blocking for 3RR is to be applied to anyone who breaches it.

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com