Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR/Administrator instructions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This a guide on how administrators (and, potentially, non-admin "clerks") should deal with reports at the 3RR noticeboard.

Contents

[edit] WP:3RR

According to WP:3RR, any user(s) who make 4 reverts (or more) to an article in a 24 hour period (from 1st revert to 4th) are, generally, blocked and/or warned. The noticeboard is used to report users who have potentially violated the said policy.

[edit] Noticeboard

[edit] How to deal with reports

  1. The simplest way to check a 3RR violation is to look at the article(s) history. If it's clear that a violation has been committed then a block/warning may be in order.
  2. Check to make sure that the reported user has been warned before their 4th revert (if the user has made more than 4 reverts, make sure that they've been warned before his/her last revert). This can be ignored at the admin's discretion if the user is considered "experienced" (erudite with policy) and/or if they have been blocked for 3RR violations in the past.
    • It may also prove useful to look at the reporter's history as they, too, may have violated 3RR or edit warred.
  3. Administrators should move any discussion not related to the 3RR report (e.g. content disputes) to a more appropriate area (i.e. users' talk pages) and not become involved in said dispute (As it may create a WP:COI when dealing with the report).
  4. Admins should check the diffs in the report (if there are no diffs, then it's best to check the article(s) history, but, otherwise, it's considered a "malformed" report and the reporting user should be notified as such) to make sure they're actually reverts (See #BLP circumstances).
  5. After deciding on action(s), if any, to be taken (See #Results) and carrying out said action(s), the admin dealing with the report should leave a brief summary at the bottom of the report and in the report header (e.g. (Result: 24 hour block)).

[edit] Results

  • If the admin decides a block is warranted, then they must take into account the user(s) past history of edit warring (by checking their block log), if any, and the severity of the 3RR violation:
  • 1st offence - 24 hour block
  • 2nd offence - 48 hour block etc.
  • In place of blocks, for example, article/page protection may be used instead. This is most effective if the edit war is/was between new users and/or IPs. The length of protection is generally left up to the admin's discretion, taking into account the severity of the edit war etc.
  • If the edit war is clearly a content dispute, then referring the users to WP:RfM and/or WP:RfC can prevent the need for blocks.
  • Additionally, admins can offer to mediate disputes themselves if other methods have so far failed.
  • Article or topic bans may be enacted if a user(s) has a history of edit warring. This can be effective to induce positive discussion between parties of contributors but can be difficult to appropriately enforce.
  • If the administrator feels a user has edit warred, but has not violated 3RR, and/or where a block would be punitive, then he/she can issue another warning in place of a block.
  • If there has not been a 3RR violation or a clear cut edit war (See #Edit warring), then a result of "No violation" can be recorded.
  • Occasionally, a report may be considered too "old" (See #Stale reports) to take action on and can be marked as "Stale".

[edit] Circumstances of note

See also: WP:3RR#Exceptions

[edit] BLP circumstances

Biographies of Living persons are considered to be the most fragile part of Wikipedia today. The potential for libellous materials to enter into an article about a living or recently deceased person and cause a great deal of damage for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation is omnipresent. Therefore, it is paramount for administrators to take this policy into account when dealing with 3RR reports.

For example, if two users are edit warring over a BLP, one is removing a potentially libellous statement and the other is entering it, then the user removing it is given the benefit of the doubt. Essentially, if the user, whom is removing the potentially damaging statement(s), violates 3RR, then their violation may be exempt from any action taken. Unfortunately, this can be very subjective and any 3RR report on a BLP should be scrutinised with the upmost care and attention to WP:AGF as possible.

If there is any confusion at all for the admin closing the report then they should post a message on WP:AN and/or WP:ANI to get a wider input from the community.

[edit] Edit warring

The definition of edit warring: "Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area." (from WP:EDITWAR). Administrators at the 3RR noticeboard should understand that 3RR does not entitle users to 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Any user who is clearly edit warring, although not violating 3RR per se, can and should still be regarded as violating Wikipedia edit warring policy.

The same goes for any user whom is making 3 reverts in a 24 hour period and then making a 4th (or more) after that 24 hour period. This is known as "gaming the system" (See WP:GAME).

[edit] Stale reports

A report, colloquially on Wikipedia, that is considered "old", or "out of date" is referred to as "stale". There is no set time or date for when a 3RR report is considered stale; it is generally left up to the administrators to decide on this.

One important thing to note when closing a report is, if a block is to be carried out, will it be punitive or preventative? When an administrator looks at a report, if a user has violated 3RR but has not reverted for a lengthy amount of time (in their opinion), then the block may be considered a "punishment", and, therefore, should not be executed.

Administrators are only recommended to make blocks where it will prevent damage to Wikipedia. If there is doubt about whether the block will be considered punitive or not, do not block. Either contact WP:AN or WP:ANI for a wider communal input or use other forms of action.

[edit] Miscellaneous

  • Admins should avoid taking action if they're involved in a particular dispute related to the report. Rather, they should request third party assistance.
  • If in any doubt at all about what decision to make when analysing a report, admins should post a message at WP:AN or WP:ANI asking for another opinion.
  • Remember to WP:AGF when dealing with reports; occasionally a new user may not be aware of 3RR.

[edit] See also