[WikiEN-l] Socks; 3RR policy change

[Anthony DiPierro]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:48:50 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
<jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Regarding sockpuppets and the 3RR rule.
> 
> I'm sympathetic.  It's a tough problem, though.
> 
> However, I think our biggest headache has been the sort of user who is
> *above* using sockpuppets, but *not above* getting into a revert war
> so long as we didn't have enforcement.

In the past, perhaps. but giving sockpuppets this extra advantage will
quickly shift the problem to those users.  I don't think shifting the
problem is what we should be doing, we should instead work towards
resolving the problem.

Part of that involves defining the problem, and one thing I do think
we will gain from the 3RR is a better understanding of the underlying
issues.  Revert wars are a symptom, but once we get the symptom out of
the way maybe we can better get to the root.  This is why while I have
voted no on strictly enforcing the 3RR I don't strongly oppose it.

I'd like to add that I don't think we should be giving admins access
to IP logs or forcing users to provide an email address.  I think it's
enough to simply declare that reverts of anonymous users, banned
users, or obvious sockpuppets don't count toward the 3RR.  Maybe
"obvious sockpuppets" isn't declared well enough, but saying that any
user who has made 10 edits over the course of 48-hours shouldn't be
considered a sockpuppet (for the purpose of this rule) would be enough
to avoid most abuse.  The user would have to make good edits for two
days and then suddenly start revert warring, and any user who does
that will quickly get banned.

Alternatively stated, any user would be on probation for the first 48
hours of editing, and would be subject to reversion by any other user.
I'd much rather see this than rely on email addresses and IP
addresses.  Besides the privacy concerns, this is relatively easier to
circumvent anyway (kind of like the 3RR itself).

Anthony