Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:18, 14 November 2004

The purpose of this proposal is that the Arbitration Committee members (as a whole) want to reduce the load of 3RR violation cases they see.

Text of the proposal

If you violate the three revert rule, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours.

In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops should treat both sides equally.

(Remember, the three revert rule says don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.)

This poll will last for 2 weeks, ending at 03:00 on November 28, 2004 (UTC).

Yes

I am personally endorsing and promoting this proposal, because I think that revert warring has become an absurd drain on us, and it has not worked for it to be a mere guideline of politeness, nor has it proved effective for the ArbCom to consider every single case of this. Violation of the 3RR is widely considered to be a problem in the community, even by those who are the worst violators. Jimbo Wales 03:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Jimbo Wales 03:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. →Raul654 03:07, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
3. Martin 03:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (caveat: wikipedia:blocking policy obviously applies, which states Note that block wars, in which a user is repeatedly blocked and unblocked, are extremely harmful. If there is serious disagreement over whether a user should be blocked, err on the side of leaving them unblocked, and consult the arbitration committee for an authoritative ruling on the matter.)
4. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:09, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
5. ] 03:09, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
6. Of course. --Conti|✉ 03:13, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
7. Ambi 03:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. ] 03:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. Rje 03:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
10. Mattworld 03:19, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
11. Whoops, looked away and missed out on voting 4th. James F. (talk) 03:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
12. Antandrus 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
13. Graham ☺ | Talk 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. ClockworkTroll 03:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
15. Danny 03:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) with the addendum that I like Gzornenplatz's addition.
16. Elian 03:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
17. Reene (リニ) 03:26, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
18. Shane King 03:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
19. Definitely. ugen64 03:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    toastedmunchkin 03:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Invalid vote, user has two edits. ] 03:52, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

20. Support, but we must watch to make sure that it is applied stringently. (moved vote from No) --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
21. Sillydragon 03:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Also like Gzornenplatz's addition)
22. Jayjg 03:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
23. Cool Hand Luke 04:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
24. Cyan 04:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
25. ] 04:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Yes Because he told me too. You know who you are!
26. ] 04:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
27. Viriditas 04:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
28. Flockmeal 04:14, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
29. Support strongly. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No

1. The "may" and the "up to" invites unequal and arbitrary enforcement. I would support a policy that says If you violate the three revert rule, sysops must block you for 24 hours. That means, if a violation is pointed out to a sysop who is obviously present, that sysop could not refuse to block the offender. Gzornenplatz 03:22, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
   • I haven't read any rule here on wikipedia which starts with "A sysop must..." yet. A sysop is not forced to remove vandalism if it is pointed out to him, but still almost every sysop removes vandalism on sight. Saying "you must" is pretty much impossible to enforce. --Conti|✉ 03:31, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
     • What is hard to enforce? We could say a sysop who flatly refuses to follow the policy will be desysopped. Gzornenplatz 03:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
       • The only way to refuse to follow this policy is to block one participant and not the other. Sysops shouldn't considered in violation of the policy if one user demands the blocking of his/her enemy and the sysop refuses. If the situation is legit, there are plenty of other admins to contact. ] 03:42, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
         • If there's an edit war where both sides violated the 3RR, then one sysop who sympathizes with one side could block only the other side, which would end the edit war and thus no other sysop would take notice, and the one who is blocked obviously couldn't contact any admin. Gzornenplatz 03:48, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
           • The propsal says: "In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops should treat both sides equally". Maybe it should be "sysop have to treat both sides equally" here, because I too think that this is important. --Conti|✉ 03:52, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
   • Sysops do not have duties in particular, only as a whole and overall to the Community at large, and such a sea-change in the direction of policy is terribly major. A minor copy edit to policy it is not. James F. (talk) 03:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
     • It's high time they get some, and this is as good a place as any to start. Making sysops accountable to actually do their duty will make adminship less attractive and keeps the wrong kind of people away, i.e. those who just seek power or prestige. I'm sure there would still be enough volunteers. Gzornenplatz 03:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
2. No, because of the intemperate enforcement I've seen of the Anthony agreement. If any admin could undo it and it would then have to stay undone until there was consensus, that would be a different matter. Jamesday 03:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
   • If there has been intemperate enforcement in the Anthony case, and I don't really agree with that, it has been primarily due to the ambiguity of what it is he's not supposed to do. The nice thing about 3RR is that there is really no ambiguity about it. Gzornenplatz's concern is not compelling to me because with 300+ sysops, only 1 is required to do the right thing, and so it seems quite unlikely that enforcement will be uneven. Is it really going to be impossible to find even 1 sysop who will enforce the rule in a given case? Of all the policies we have, there are very very few which are are simple to evaluate as a violation of 3RR. Jimbo Wales 03:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
     • Indeed, but that makes my point. Since it's clear-cut whether or not someone has violated the 3RR, there's no need to allow any subjective sysop judgements. Yet that's what your proposal would do. Sysops would "overlook" violations by people they like, and be quick to block people they don't. Moreover, the "up to" means that they may give short token blocks to people they like and the full 24 hours to those they don't. Gzornenplatz 03:59, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
     • In the Anthony case I think of things like: an admin blocking him for 24 hours for listing on Votes for Undeletion a page which was speedy deleted as patent nonsense when it was an entirely understandable dictionary definition, after discussion where it turned out that three people thought it was a speedy delete candidate and three didn't. Or blocking for 24 hours for making the same one word comment in a keep vote in VfD that the lister made in their listing. In the case of this policy: blocking everyone who reverts three times is inappropriate, while in some cases, it's a necessary tool. Yet the policy as proposed lets the most aggressive admins overrule the more moderate admins. It (and all policy) should be written so that the moderate voices prevail where there is disagreement. Jamesday 04:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Gzornenplatz. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Moving vote to Yes, with caveat. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)