Slim writes:
One of the problems with 3RR-policy enforcement is that admins are supposed to treat equally the editor who is inserting an unreferenced, unsubstantiated claim, and the editor who is trying to get rid of that claim. One is violating [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] policy, while the other is trying to enforce it. Yet both are blocked. If the editor trying to enforce policy isn't allowed to violate 3RR, then s/he must go through dispute resolution; put up an RfC (which rarely brings useful results); or apply for mediation (which can take months to arrange). Meanwhile the nonsense sits there for 24 hours; then maybe there's another brief flurry of reverts, then it sits there for another 24 hours; and this can go on for weeks, until the less determined editor backs off. If the process takes priority over the product, that's fine.
Right - and the process should never take precedence over the product. We must remember that the goal of Wikipedia is to produce a trusted, accurate, free encyclopedia. The goal has never been to make a list of rules to blindly follow for their own sake.
That's why we have group discussions, and don't enforce policy with 'bots.
But if it's the production of an accurate encylopedia that is the priority, then this is not fine. Surely, for this reason, when looking at 3RR violations, admins should be allowed to take into account who was violating Wikipedia's editorial content policies and who was trying to preserve them.
Thank you for putting into words what I was hoping someone would say. I agree wholeheartedly. Some people make 3+ reverts (effectively a fourth or more reverts) in order to damage Wikipedia, or to blatantly violate our NPOV policy. Long-time trusted Wikipedia contributors on occasions have to fix this damage, which sometimes requires reverts. Blindly following the 3RR policy without taking context into account is not sensible; it gives an edge to vandals and POV-pushers.
If our goal is to create an accurate encyclopedia, then we are obligated to use some common sense in deciding when to punish someone for violating the 3RR rule...or when to say "Good job, you stopped this damage, and now the calvary can come in and prevent further damage from the person you are dealing with."
Smoddy writes:
If an editor has reverted a page three times in a 24 hour period, with the exception of **blatant** vandalism, they
should be blocked. Period. This ensures even-handedness.
No, this does not ensure even-handedness. It only ensures that trouble-makers are given a way to effectively cause enough trouble to ban or block geunine and trusted contributors. Blindly following rules for the sake of following rules is an anathema to every legal and rule-based system in the world, whether political, religious or technical. We should not be Wikipedia-fundamentalists. Surely Slim is correct in saying that we need to allow common-sense, at least on occasion.
Sincerely,
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250