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 6/23/06, Warren Blanco fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, admins seem increasingly willing to block without regard to warnings, a practiced that assumes bad faith.
I think admins are generally able to ascertain when a block is warranted and when it is not. Do we really need to add yet more policy to cover this?
On 6/23/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Warren Blanco fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, admins seem increasingly willing to block without regard to warnings, a practiced that assumes bad faith.
I think admins are generally able to ascertain when a block is warranted and when it is not.
Exactly. This statement, as is so typical, assumes bad faith about admins, while decrying assumptions of bad faith.
Do we really need to add yet more policy to cover this?
No, and especially not bad policy. This idea would give any editor license to revert as many times as they wanted, until they were finally "officially warned" to stop reverting. Then they could come back 24 hours later, and again revert as many times as they wanted until they were "officially warned". It's a license for 4, 5, or more reverts on any article, as long as you're quick enough on the revert button, or your opponents aren't wise enough to post that formal warning before you get your reverts in.
Jay.
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:52:45 -0400, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
I think admins are generally able to ascertain when a block is warranted and when it is not. Do we really need to add yet more policy to cover this?
Quite. What part of "edit warring is bad" do people have such trouble understanding?
Guy (JzG)
On 6/23/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Quite. What part of "edit warring is bad" do people have such trouble understanding?
The part about the other guy getting away with it so far so why can't they?
Seems to be the constant argument.
-Matt
On 6/23/06, Warren Blanco fireislandparadise@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.
* jayjg wrote:
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.
That is the practice of many admins, but is not universal. Some people do indeed get blocked under 3RR without having any idea what it is.
On 6/23/06, Conrad Dunkerson conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net wrote:
- jayjg wrote:
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.
That is the practice of many admins, but is not universal. Some people do indeed get blocked under 3RR without having any idea what it is.
Is there any reason not to write a warning into policy? All this means is that for people making complaints at ANI/3RR they must first warn the violator and wait for her or him to disregard the warning. Certainly it's not a bad thing to build an assumption of good faith into the policy. Right now you've had one edit warrier trying to trap another into violating 3RR which isn't what the policy is intended to do. The only exception to the warning rule should be someone who makes a complaint on the board, if they are involved in an edit war and complain about someone else then their edits in that dispute should also be checked for 3RR violation even if they weren't warned.
On 6/23/06, Conrad Dunkerson conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net wrote: Some people do
indeed get blocked under 3RR without having any idea what it is.
If they are blocked, they would presumably be aware that they had been engaged in edit warring. It's pretty difficult to get oneself blocked if one persistently fails to misbehave.
Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote: On 6/23/06, Conrad Dunkerson wrote: Some people do
indeed get blocked under 3RR without having any idea what it is.
If they are blocked, they would presumably be aware that they had >>been engaged in edit warring. It's pretty difficult to get oneself blocked f one persistently fails to misbehave.
I'm inclined to agree with Tony on this matter. Tea and crumpets are good for the mind, good for body, good for the spirit.
Joining the Harmonious editing club might assist in refraining from edit warring. My "membership" has assisted in keeping the urge to revert in content disputes to an appropriate manner. -Zero
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Football 06 - Go with the leader. Start your league today!
My problem is that not requiring a warning encourages gaming by making it easier for a more savvy edit warrior to take advantage of another editor and play "gotcha". This is particularly the case as most editors aren't aware of the new "unrelated reverts" interpretation. If someone is savvy enough to complain on ANI/3RR they should be capable of giving someone a warning first, especially if they are a participant in the edit war.
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote: On 6/23/06, Conrad Dunkerson wrote: Some people do
indeed get blocked under 3RR without having any idea what it is.
If they are blocked, they would presumably be aware that they had >>been engaged in edit warring. It's pretty difficult to get oneself blocked f one persistently fails to misbehave.
I'm inclined to agree with Tony on this matter. Tea and crumpets are good for the mind, good for body, good for the spirit.
Joining the Harmonious editing club might assist in refraining from edit warring. My "membership" has assisted in keeping the urge to revert in content disputes to an appropriate manner. -Zero
Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Football '06 - Go with the leader. Start your league today! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/24/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
My problem is that not requiring a warning encourages gaming by making it easier for a more savvy edit warrior to take advantage of another editor and play "gotcha". This is particularly the case as most editors aren't aware of the new "unrelated reverts" interpretation. If someone is savvy enough to complain on ANI/3RR they should be capable of giving someone a warning first, especially if they are a participant in the edit war.
Is "gotcha" a big problem? Let's see: * You can only do it once, ever, to a single editor * You can only do it when the person has reverted 3 times in a single day, something we wish to discourage * The punishment is only banning for 24 hours.
Sure, it could happen. But it's probably not worth worrying about.
Steve
On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
My problem is that not requiring a warning encourages gaming by making it easier for a more savvy edit warrior to take advantage of another editor and play "gotcha". This is particularly the case as most editors aren't aware of the new "unrelated reverts" interpretation. If someone is savvy enough to complain on ANI/3RR they should be capable of giving someone a warning first, especially if they are a participant in the edit war.
Is "gotcha" a big problem? Let's see:
- You can only do it once, ever, to a single editor
- You can only do it when the person has reverted 3 times in a single
day, something we wish to discourage
- The punishment is only banning for 24 hours.
Sure, it could happen. But it's probably not worth worrying about.
* The punishment is only banning for 24 hours. : Yes, but some people, after discovering wikipedia, think a temporary block amounts to censorship, violating rights, constitutions stuff blah blah blah. I've seen it even for 1-3 hours blocking.
:So, can't edit wikipedia for a few hours? What a terrible thing!! but live with it and move on.
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
My problem is that not requiring a warning encourages gaming by making it easier for a more savvy edit warrior to take advantage of another editor and play "gotcha". This is particularly the case as most editors aren't aware of the new "unrelated reverts" interpretation. If someone is savvy enough to complain on ANI/3RR they should be capable of giving someone a warning first, especially if they are a participant in the edit war.
Is "gotcha" a big problem? Let's see:
- You can only do it once, ever, to a single editor
- You can only do it when the person has reverted 3 times in a single
day, something we wish to discourage
- The punishment is only banning for 24 hours.
Sure, it could happen. But it's probably not worth worrying about.
- The punishment is only banning for 24 hours.
: Yes, but some people, after discovering wikipedia, think a temporary block amounts to censorship, violating rights, constitutions stuff blah blah blah. I've seen it even for 1-3 hours blocking.
:So, can't edit wikipedia for a few hours? What a terrible thing!! but live with it and move on.
The problem is not with the length of the punishment, but in the punitive attitude of some cowboy vigilantes.
Ec
The purpose of 3RR is not to give admins the sense of power by maximizing their opportunities to block but to prevent or stop edit wars. We should be trying to reduce the number of blocks, not increase them. If a mandatory warning results in ending edit wars without a block why not do it?
On 6/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
My problem is that not requiring a warning encourages gaming by making
it
easier for a more savvy edit warrior to take advantage of another
editor and
play "gotcha". This is particularly the case as most editors aren't
aware of
the new "unrelated reverts" interpretation. If someone is savvy enough
to
complain on ANI/3RR they should be capable of giving someone a warning first, especially if they are a participant in the edit war.
Is "gotcha" a big problem? Let's see:
- You can only do it once, ever, to a single editor
- You can only do it when the person has reverted 3 times in a single
day, something we wish to discourage
- The punishment is only banning for 24 hours.
Sure, it could happen. But it's probably not worth worrying about.
- The punishment is only banning for 24 hours.
: Yes, but some people, after discovering wikipedia, think a temporary block amounts to censorship, violating rights, constitutions stuff blah blah blah. I've seen it even for 1-3 hours blocking.
:So, can't edit wikipedia for a few hours? What a terrible thing!! but live with it and move on.
The problem is not with the length of the punishment, but in the punitive attitude of some cowboy vigilantes.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/28/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of 3RR is not to give admins the sense of power by maximizing their opportunities to block but to prevent or stop edit wars. We should be trying to reduce the number of blocks, not increase them. If a mandatory warning results in ending edit wars without a block why not do it?
A non-mandatory (but strongly encouraged) warning has that effect. A mandatory warning would create situations where a user who has edit warred can't be blocked because no warning was given.
Steve
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose of 3RR is not to give admins the sense of power by maximizing their opportunities to block but to prevent or stop edit wars. We should be trying to reduce the number of blocks, not increase them. If a mandatory warning results in ending edit wars without a block why not do it?
A non-mandatory (but strongly encouraged) warning has that effect. A mandatory warning would create situations where a user who has edit warred can't be blocked because no warning was given.
Steve
The edit war would (or should) be ended by the warning given at that point, otherwise the offender would be blocked. We're getting a bit chicken and egg here. The purpose of the 3RR rules is not punitive but preventative. If the edit war has already ended there's no need for the block anyway. If it hasn't ended then the warning should end it even if it's made late.
On 6/28/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
The edit war would (or should) be ended by the warning given at that point, otherwise the offender would be blocked. We're getting a bit chicken and egg here. The purpose of the 3RR rules is not punitive but preventative. If the edit war has already ended there's no need for the block anyway. If it hasn't ended then the warning should end it even if it's made late.
No-one is disagreeing that often a warning is the best first course of action. All the opposition is to making it a compulsory one.
On Jun 25, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Is "gotcha" a big problem? Let's see:
- You can only do it once, ever, to a single editor
- You can only do it when the person has reverted 3 times in a single
day, something we wish to discourage
- The punishment is only banning for 24 hours.
Sure, it could happen. But it's probably not worth worrying about.
Steve
Exactly.
This rule has served us admirably so far and one that is really simple to grasp: Don't want to be blocked, don't revert more than three times in 24 hrs; and if you do, you will enjoy a forced wikibreak, with a chance for you to assess if it is worth doing it again. Sweet and simple. I do not see the need to change it...
-- Jossi
On 6/24/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
My problem is that not requiring a warning encourages gaming by making it easier for a more savvy edit warrior to take advantage of another editor and play "gotcha". This is particularly the case as most editors aren't aware of the new "unrelated reverts" interpretation. If someone is savvy enough to complain on ANI/3RR they should be capable of giving someone a warning first, especially if they are a participant in the edit war.
The "unrelated reverts" interpretation isn't new (see my own edits on the 3RR talk page, circa February, 2005). If you need it spelled out to you, here it is:
Don't engage in edit warring on any page. Ever.
On 6/25/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
My problem is that not requiring a warning encourages gaming by making
it
easier for a more savvy edit warrior to take advantage of another editor
and
play "gotcha". This is particularly the case as most editors aren't
aware of
the new "unrelated reverts" interpretation. If someone is savvy enough
to
complain on ANI/3RR they should be capable of giving someone a warning first, especially if they are a participant in the edit war.
The "unrelated reverts" interpretation isn't new (see my own edits on the 3RR talk page, circa February, 2005). If you need it spelled out to you, here it is:
Don't engage in edit warring on any page. Ever.
The problem is the "unrelated reverts" rule makes it much easier to be blocked without there having been an edit war.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/27/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
My problem is that not requiring a warning encourages gaming by making
it
easier for a more savvy edit warrior to take advantage of another
editor
and
play "gotcha". This is particularly the case as most editors aren't
aware of
the new "unrelated reverts" interpretation. If someone is savvy enough
to
complain on ANI/3RR they should be capable of giving someone a warning first, especially if they are a participant in the edit war.
The "unrelated reverts" interpretation isn't new (see my own edits on the 3RR talk page, circa February, 2005). If you need it spelled out to you, here it is:
Don't engage in edit warring on any page. Ever.
The problem is the "unrelated reverts" rule makes it much easier to be blocked without there having been an edit war.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/23/06, Warren Blanco fireislandparadise@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.
There is no exception to the "three revert rule". If you are reverting more than *once* in twenty-four hours, I suggest that you aren't editing very well. Rather than seek exceptions, let us simply resolved to avoid edit warring.
On 6/24/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
There is no exception to the "three revert rule". If you are reverting more than *once* in twenty-four hours, I suggest that you aren't editing very well. Rather than seek exceptions, let us simply resolved to avoid edit warring.
There is of course an exception for reverting blatant vandalism.
In practice we generaly like to warn new users but it is up to the judgement of the admin.
On 6/23/06, Warren Blanco fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Strongly oppose. Admins should use discretion in not blocking unwarned users, but they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. 3RR is already subject to gaming, and it only works because it's so strict. Giving more escape clauses is a bad idea.
Steve
On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Warren Blanco fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Strongly oppose. Admins should use discretion in not blocking unwarned users, but they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. 3RR is already subject to gaming, and it only works because it's so strict. Giving more escape clauses is a bad idea.
Steve
Small point of order: 3RR doesn't work for shit.
3RR is supposed to be an "electric fence" of some sort. Instead, though, all it does is make edit warring into a game of chicken. One side of a dispute dredges up sockpuppets/meatpuppets, the other does the same, and they play the "gotcha" game with their patron admins on either side standing by to drop a block on the opposing side at moment's notice.
Then whichever side got the block fumes, while the other side has free rein to make the article into complete lunacy... until the block expires and they go back to warring.
It's the same thing with our page protection policies. A bunch of edit warriors start reverting each other and then demanding the page be locked to their preferred version. Demand that it be locked, and get one of their friendly patron admins (and thanks to the broken RFA procedure these days, we've got a fuck-ton of those too) to make sure the lock is on "their" version.
We need better policies. Policies that actually make sense. I proposed, a long while back, changing the page-lock procedure (in the case of edit wars as opposed to mere vandalism) so that the page be blanked or stubbed while it's locked, to make it so that neither side in an edit war would "win" by getting the page locked to their side.
Instead, I was attacked for even trying to suggest it.
So here you go. A reasoned suggestion.
As for 3RR, better idea. If you're caught in 3RR, both you AND whoever you were reverting get blocked. That's supposed to be the policy as pertains to edit warring anyways, but no admin seems to give a rat's ass about policy when they can misquote it to give their POV warrior buddies a hand.
A. Nony Mouse
On 6/30/06, A. Nony Mouse mousyme@gmail.com wrote:
3RR is supposed to be an "electric fence" of some sort. Instead, though, all it does is make edit warring into a game of chicken. One side of a dispute dredges up sockpuppets/meatpuppets, the other does the same, and they play the "gotcha" game with their patron admins on either side standing by to drop a block on the opposing side at moment's notice.
3RR is a godsend. It is clear, specific, unambiguous, and easily enforceable. Whatever its flaws, it's preferable to what we had before: unlimited reverts unless an admin wandered by and felt like jumping into the snake pit.
It's the same thing with our page protection policies. A bunch of edit warriors start reverting each other and then demanding the page be locked to their preferred version. Demand that it be locked, and get one of their friendly patron admins (and thanks to the broken RFA procedure these days, we've got a fuck-ton of those too) to make sure the lock is on "their" version.
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.