Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
in this revision [1] there is a tightening of notification requirements. The revision was reverted. Are folk supportive of the reversion? Myself, I think I would not like to see it be required that everyone be notified every time they violate 3RR. It's on them to act responsibly. Doing otherwise seems to encourage rules lawyering. ++Lar: t/c 17:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- We warn for everything else. I think we should recognize that the purpose of the 3RR is stop edit wars, not punish users. In that regard, warning them that they're facing a block if they continue might be more helpful. It also requires actual communication by the block administrator, and invites discussion from the users. Much better than a pithy block. Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Warning as a guideline, I support. But as a "you didn't warn me, even if I'm a repeat offender, so I get off and can go off causing trouble at AN/I and call you a bad admin, then leave nasty messages on your talk page, etc...".. not so much. Guidelines are good, but excessive rigidity may not be. Repeat offenders know what they are doing and will wikilawyer this, and for first timers, WP:BITE is a sufficient guideline I think (also, the current wording suggests warning as a guideline sufficiently well). ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Lars (well I was the one that reverted he change). Many people are repeat offenders and as written even people who clearly know already would have to be re-warned; others make it perfectly clear via edit comments that they know about 3RR. Secondly, this would effectively change it into a 4R rule. Warning people is a good idea; thats what it says; I don't see why it has to be obligatory William M. Connolley 17:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the fourth revert triggers the block, usually. My concern is that the purpose here is to stop edit wars. Blocking does not stop edit wars, it delays them. Communication can actually stop one. If warning people is a good idea why isn't it done? Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Warning *is* a good idea. It is usually done. I've not-blocked people in the past because they weren't warned. I'm just opposed to it becoming an absolute William M. Connolley 18:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- That's what I am saying too. Communication is key, and it ought to be encouraged, but we don't want to make reporting a 3RR issue so onerous that no one reports them, or dealing with a 3RR issue so onerous that no admin wants to deal with them. For the most part a warning is sufficient. When it is not, one block is usually sufficient as well. But there is some small fraction of folk for which no number of warnings, no number of blocks is sufficient, they just come back and back. I'd rather not make it harder than it already is to deal with that (fortunately very small) fraction. Aren't we mostly agreeing here? If this stays as a guideline but it's emphasised and explained why it's a good thing to warn, isn't that good enough? Or do we really need additional rules? ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with William and Lar. While I would never block or report a user if I thought there was any chance that he was unaware of the rule, I would strongly object to an attempt to change policy so that if UserX is blocked for making four reverts on 13 December, and makes another four as soon as his block expires on 14 December, he can't be reported because he wasn't warned again after his third revert and before his fourth one. Actually, many users wouldn't think of sending a notification to someone who had made three reverts just after returning from a 3RR block, because they would assume that he was going to stop. It would encourage gaming of the system if edit warriors knew they couldn't be reported or blocked for their fourth revert because they hadn't been warned of this particular potential violation. I'm not aware of any admin who blocks users who are unaware of the rule. So we don't need any new rules to address that. Established users who revert a lot have a responsibility to count very carefully. Let's not make it more difficult to deal with people who are gaming the system. AnnH ♫ 23:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- To which I will add: a short block should be no big deal. If someone who is reverting like mad is blocked for a day or so without having properly received a warning, I say, "small loss". If they are new enough to this that they actually didn't yet know about this rule, then it's not the worst way to learn. (Yes, I would warn first if I were in doubt as to whether they knew, but, on the whole, I think 3RR is just one of the many refinements of the cardinal rule "Don't be a dick".) - Jmabel | Talk 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3rr Quote
I updated the "quote" from the 3RR page because what was quoted was changed on January 22, 2007. If we are going to quote the policy, then it should be the CURRENT policy, not one from 10 months ago!Balloonman 17:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent addition
I protest the recent addition to this page of the section "what might happen". I think it is merely posted in order to give legitimacy to admin's treatment of a recent 3RR violation report. Note that it was added after the event by the same admin who closed the report doing nothing. Str1977 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
