Hi,
I tried to clarify this on several pages, e.g. on [[Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy]], but I got no answer so far.
I'll try to be short:
- For a 3RR violation an admin can *block* a user but cannot ban him - The rules for blocking don't mention that the block can be extended or known socks of the same user can be blocked if the block is violated
Therefore, a user blocked under 3RR can argue that: - No admin can extend the block after 24 hours if he doesn't continue the revert war (Since this is an option only for bans but not blocks) - No admin can block him when he returns through a known sock
I think this wasn't the intention of those, who formulated the rules and the penalties for evading the block after a 3RR violation should be extended based on WP:BAN.
I've learned that several admins do interpret the policies this way, i.e. that they have the right to block the known sock and have the right to extend the block.
I think this should be fixed.
Thanks, [[User:Nyenyec]]
Sounds like legalism to me. Common sense that socks of an editor blocked for 3RR can be blocked at the very least for any further reverts (not 3 more, even one more is enough). Common sense also says that a 3RR block should not be extended.
Let's not get hung up on pedantic legalistic arguments over whether 3RR is a "block" or a "ban" or whether or not admins have a "right" to block or not block. This is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in bureacracy.
Kelly
On 6/27/05, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I tried to clarify this on several pages, e.g. on [[Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy]], but I got no answer so far.
I'll try to be short:
- For a 3RR violation an admin can *block* a user but cannot ban him
- The rules for blocking don't mention that the block can be extended
or known socks of the same user can be blocked if the block is violated
Therefore, a user blocked under 3RR can argue that:
- No admin can extend the block after 24 hours if he doesn't continue
the revert war (Since this is an option only for bans but not blocks)
- No admin can block him when he returns through a known sock
I think this wasn't the intention of those, who formulated the rules and the penalties for evading the block after a 3RR violation should be extended based on WP:BAN.
I've learned that several admins do interpret the policies this way, i.e. that they have the right to block the known sock and have the right to extend the block.
I think this should be fixed.
Thanks, [[User:Nyenyec]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/27/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like legalism to me. Common sense that socks of an editor blocked for 3RR can be blocked at the very least for any further reverts (not 3 more, even one more is enough). Common sense also says that a 3RR block should not be extended.
Let's not get hung up on pedantic legalistic arguments over whether 3RR is a "block" or a "ban" or whether or not admins have a "right" to block or not block. This is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in bureacracy.
Right!
Our policy pages are around to help make our behavior more uniform and to reduce the surprise when we do what we normally do... They do not exist to shackle us. The wikipedia community reserves the right to decided everything on a case by case basis. Consistency is important but it is less important than having a correct solution.
You are absolutely right. But let me give you some background to my question.
I'm one of the 2 sysops on HuWiki. We have a growing, but still fragile community with about 20 very active (100+ edits / month) editors.
Currently we experienced the first onslaught of quite persistent trolls and disruptive users ever. Unfortunately several of the key policies have never been translated including WP:SOCK or have been translated before but never had to be put into use like 3RR.
A couple of days ago we had to issue the first blocks for 3RR and the two sysops were vehemently attacked by the blocked users and their friends, demanding our resignation.
I know it's business as usual in EnWiki, but to me, this was my first trial by fire as a sysop (i.e. being called a "nazi"). We're in the process of translating and clarifying all key policies and that's how I found out this inconsistency in the word of the policy and common practice in EnWiki.
The reason I wanted to clarify this is because I know I'm going to be *personally* attacked because of this if its not crystal clear in our version. :(
BTW, do you know how the initial policies of smaller Wikipedia's get formulated? Are they translations of EnWiki policies? Or do they have their own local benevolent dicator like Jimbo, who has the final say in these matters (at least initially)?
Or do people in smaller Wikipedias vote on each and every policy from day 1?
Thanks, nyenyec
On 6/27/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like legalism to me. Common sense that socks of an editor blocked for 3RR can be blocked at the very least for any further reverts (not 3 more, even one more is enough). Common sense also says that a 3RR block should not be extended.
Let's not get hung up on pedantic legalistic arguments over whether 3RR is a "block" or a "ban" or whether or not admins have a "right" to block or not block. This is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in bureacracy.
Right!
Our policy pages are around to help make our behavior more uniform and to reduce the surprise when we do what we normally do... They do not exist to shackle us. The wikipedia community reserves the right to decided everything on a case by case basis. Consistency is important but it is less important than having a correct solution.
On 6/27/05, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
Currently we experienced the first onslaught of quite persistent trolls and disruptive users ever. Unfortunately several of the key policies have never been translated including WP:SOCK or have been translated before but never had to be put into use like 3RR.
A couple of days ago we had to issue the first blocks for 3RR and the two sysops were vehemently attacked by the blocked users and their friends, demanding our resignation.
I know it's business as usual in EnWiki, but to me, this was my first trial by fire as a sysop (i.e. being called a "nazi"). We're in the process of translating and clarifying all key policies and that's how I found out this inconsistency in the word of the policy and common practice in EnWiki.
The reason I wanted to clarify this is because I know I'm going to be *personally* attacked because of this if its not crystal clear in our version. :(
BTW, do you know how the initial policies of smaller Wikipedia's get formulated? Are they translations of EnWiki policies? Or do they have their own local benevolent dicator like Jimbo, who has the final say in these matters (at least initially)?
Or do people in smaller Wikipedias vote on each and every policy from day 1?
There is nothing magical about policy on en. Other wikis are free to make their own policy to meet their own specific needs. The only thing that isn't negotiable is NPOV.
People will attack admins for protecting the wiki no matter how precisely formulated policy is. Don't think that writing highly detailed, well-defined policy will have any effect on that.
en has LOTS of places where the "formal policy" deviates from actual practice. Eventually someone will fix the formal policy to match the actual practice, at which point actual practice will again diverge from formal policy.
Kelly
On 28/06/05, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
The reason I wanted to clarify this is because I know I'm going to be *personally* attacked because of this if its not crystal clear in our version. :(
Perhaps just ensure that it is clear in the final hu.policy that, when you say "user", you mean "the user John Smith" not "the username johnsmith"? It may be that this allows ambiguities - people trying to argue that socks shouldn't be blocked because they interpret "user" as being "username" not "person"...
And best of luck keeping the peace!
I agree with the others here. It's just common sense to block people who are trying to avoid their punishment by sockpuppeting. Just make sure they really are the same as best you can.
--Mgm
On 6/27/05, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I tried to clarify this on several pages, e.g. on [[Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy]], but I got no answer so far.
I'll try to be short:
- For a 3RR violation an admin can *block* a user but cannot ban him
- The rules for blocking don't mention that the block can be extended
or known socks of the same user can be blocked if the block is violated
Therefore, a user blocked under 3RR can argue that:
- No admin can extend the block after 24 hours if he doesn't continue
the revert war (Since this is an option only for bans but not blocks)
- No admin can block him when he returns through a known sock
I think this wasn't the intention of those, who formulated the rules and the penalties for evading the block after a 3RR violation should be extended based on WP:BAN.
I've learned that several admins do interpret the policies this way, i.e. that they have the right to block the known sock and have the right to extend the block.
I think this should be fixed.
Thanks, [[User:Nyenyec]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l