Wikipedia:Requests for comment/3RR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In this edit, SlimVirgin altered the 3RR rule. In this edit, she altered the nutshell synopsis. I have no reason to think that SV was not attempting to clarify policy in good faith. I have every reason to believe, however, that this change slipped in largely unnoticed and unconsidered by the community. As these edits have problematic— and unconsidered— consequences, I am challenging them.
- This change marks a dramatic expansion of the scope of the 3RR rule, but I see no evidence that "consensus was reached", or that "changes [made] to this policy reflect consensus before [they were made]", as required by {{policy}}. It appears that it was simply changed, without establishing that such practice either did not in fact violate official policy, or that it wasn't an oversimplification of official policy.
- As to the danger of opening this particular door, many benign edits would constitute partial reverts, but this overbroad change makes them all subject to 3RR, bypassing the criteria elaborated below for careful exceptions. This is not supported by any discussion in evidence that I know of. Note that WP:REVERT only acknowledged whole reverts, until it was hastily changed when I raised this challenge.
- Because of the broad spectrum of benign edits which would fall under the rule, this would make 3RR less like an electric fence as originally intended, and more like a minefield. One would often be unaware one had violated the rule.
- In particular, this change makes most good faith edits in compromise 3RR-countable, which especially undermines the 1RR principle. One could find oneself in a harmonious editing session with a collaborator, exchanging edits in compromise and tacitly accepting corrections of fact, only to find edits in that session counted towards 3RR when reverting an outsider once.
- There is no evidence that the change actually advances the objectives of 3RR, though it does make it far easier for admins to block users. The issue of dealing with those who would game the system when edit warring has been raised repeatedly, but without any explanation of why the in whole or in part language is necessary to do so.
- Not entirely without reason, 3RR violators are highly stigmatized. This makes challenges to any unjust application of the rule virtually impossible. By dramatically increasing the scope of edits subject to 3RR, this gives admins the perogative to so brand virtually any contributor who resists an edit as a 3RR violator, with little hope of just review. This has consequences for both NPOV and anyone can edit, both core Foundation principles.
Thus far, discussion on the talk page has been dominated by a small handfull of admins outraged at the suggestion that in whole or in part is problematic. Particularly worrying is their repeated refusal to allow the {{activediscussion}} flag on the WP:3RR page, effectively hiding the discussion from other community members referencing the rule. It is unclear to me how this is not disruption.
I would like to test community concern by posting this request for comment. Even if you concur with the change, I would ask you to address your concerns in the discussion, so as to have some record of community feeling on the matter.
StrangerInParadise 02:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
