The purpose of 3RR is not to give admins the sense of power by maximizing their opportunities to block but to prevent or stop edit wars. We should be trying to reduce the number of blocks, not increase them. If a mandatory warning results in ending edit wars without a block why not do it?
On 6/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/06, fireislandparadise fireislandparadise@gmail.com wrote:
My problem is that not requiring a warning encourages gaming by making
it
easier for a more savvy edit warrior to take advantage of another
editor and
play "gotcha". This is particularly the case as most editors aren't
aware of
the new "unrelated reverts" interpretation. If someone is savvy enough
to
complain on ANI/3RR they should be capable of giving someone a warning first, especially if they are a participant in the edit war.
Is "gotcha" a big problem? Let's see:
- You can only do it once, ever, to a single editor
- You can only do it when the person has reverted 3 times in a single
day, something we wish to discourage
- The punishment is only banning for 24 hours.
Sure, it could happen. But it's probably not worth worrying about.
- The punishment is only banning for 24 hours.
: Yes, but some people, after discovering wikipedia, think a temporary block amounts to censorship, violating rights, constitutions stuff blah blah blah. I've seen it even for 1-3 hours blocking.
:So, can't edit wikipedia for a few hours? What a terrible thing!! but live with it and move on.
The problem is not with the length of the punishment, but in the punitive attitude of some cowboy vigilantes.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l