[WikiEN-l] 3RR needs to go (was Re: Newbie biting, the 3RR, and improper labeling of vandalism)

[Armed Blowfish]

On 08/09/2007, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/9/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Blocking people isn't going to help
>> y'all decide what version the page
>> should be, and will probably just
>> make it hard for anyone to work
>> together.
>
> No, of course it isn't. But talk page discussion is, and the implied
> peer pressure from the consequences of edit warring (getting editing
> privileges revoked for a while) is designed to force people to go to
> the talk page if they can't work out their differences through
> editing.

It doesn't work.  People won't be discussing
on the talk page when the only talk page they
can edit is their user talk page.  More likely,
this whole blocking game will only increase
animosity between the parties of the dispute,
leading to back-and-forth accusations of who
did what wrong, trying to get each other
blocked, reblocked, or to stay blocked.

In short, 3RR buries the content dispute and
replaces it with a personal dispute.

>> I suggest you get rid of per-user
>> 3RR and replace it with some
>> sort of per-article revert rule,
>> which results in article protection
>> if a limit is exceeded.  Then y'all
>> can actually talk about content
>> instead of quibbling over who
>> deserves to be blocked and
>> who doesn't.
>
> Edit warring can be hard to define, but that's the reason for having
> the 3RR - it's a nice clear rule with only a few clear exceptions
> (although the exceptions have been getting bloated again recently,
> time to give it another spring cleaning methinks) so that anyone who
> breaks it will get blocked.

6 reverts on one article in 24 hours -> protection

That's simple.  As for figuring out what qualifies as
a 'revert', it is just as complex as 3RR, but at least
there is less at stake (only the possibility of the
article getting locked in the version you dislike,
not the possibility of getting blocked).

> Using protection more often instead of blocking is often brought up
> but the fundamental problem with that is that the consequences attach
> to the article, and not to the people who were edit warring. It's like
> imprisoning someone who just got mugged.

Articles are not people.
Articles do not have feelings.
Articles will not mind.

> If admins do their job properly, and block anyone who breaks the 3RR,
> then it all works quite nicely. All of the problems around the 3RR are
> not to do with the 3RR itself, rather they arise when admins don't
> apply it properly (ie, when they don't apply it indiscriminately).
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com

Newbies don't understand 3RR, and blocking an
established user with dozens of good edits
each day, merely because of 4 little reverts on
a random article somewhere, is a good way to
make that user feel unloved and unwanted,
possibly turning a friend into an enemy.

Or, you could protect the page until they work it
out on the article talk page, rather than encouraging
them to suppress viewpoints they don't like by
trying to get their opponents to break 3RR.