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