On 6/23/06, Warren Blanco <fireislandparadise(a)gmail.com> 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. 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.

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:52:45 -0400, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote: Quite. What part of "edit warring is bad" do people have such trouble understanding? Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

* jayjg wrote: 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, Warren Blanco <fireislandparadise(a)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.

On 6/24/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- geni

Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: On 6/23/06, Conrad Dunkerson wrote: Some people do 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!

G'day Warren, 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). 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. -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse

On 6/24/06, fireislandparadise <fireislandparadise(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: The problem is the "unrelated reverts" rule makes it much easier to be blocked without there having been an edit war. _______________________________________________

Pedro Sanchez wrote: The problem is not with the length of the punishment, but in the punitive attitude of some cowboy vigilantes. Ec

On 6/28/06, fireislandparadise <fireislandparadise(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, fireislandparadise <fireislandparadise(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- Sam

On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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