Forum:CT:Multiple 3RR's

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Multiple 3RR's

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result was no consensus. Graestan(Talk) 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


I think the problem that has come to a head with Jack Nebulax has pointed out a weakness in our 3RR policy, so I'd like to suggest we improve it.

As a reminder, we currently have these guidelines for blocking: 

With the exceptions noted above, blocks should usually progress 
according to the following table. Final discretion  is left to 
the blocking administrator on a case-by-case basis.
Regarding vandalism: First instance Second instance Third instance Repeated
Registered users Warning One week Two months Infinite
IP addresses Warning 24 hours Two weeks Three months 
When blocking a user or IP for anything less than infinite, {{blocked}} 
should be subst'ed on talk pages with the appropriate length. 
{{Banned}} should be left on userpages only following an indefinite block.

These are for things such as vandalism, spam, disruption, copyright violations, etc. However, I think most people would agree that breaking the 3RR rule is not as egregious as vandalism and the like. So what I suggest is something like three violations of a 3RR would be considered equal to a "disruption." One thing I do think would be different would be, as is common now, a 24 hour ban on the first offense. So we could add something like this to the 3RR page:

User type 1st - 3rd offenses 4th - 6th offenses 7th - 9th offenses Repeated
Registered users 24 hours One week Two months Infinite
IP Addresses 24 hours One week Two weeks Three months

Again, I'm just throwing numbers out there to get the discussion going.  :) What do you think? WhiteBoy 00:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I know and agree that 3RR Violations aren't exactly on the level with blatant and purposeful vandalism. However, I think that the suggested policy is far too lenient. I don't understand why anyone would ever manage to violate the 3RR rule more than once, MAYBE twice. I've been editing wikis for a couple years now and never had to be warned about it. And there are plenty of administrators and other helpful users around here. If you HAVE been warned for a violation before, you ought to have the sense to ask for intervention or just STOP editing and discuss with the other party on a relevant talk page or their user_talk. Ignoring the whole Jack Nebulax thing going on (which is pretty much what I tend to do with ANYTHING regarding him) I won't argue that maybe we should not be handing out infinite bans for ONLY 3RR violations. But first off, who has time to tally up offenses and figure out how many disruptions that equals? Just like people are arguing common sense for other things, I think common sense tells an admin or anyone else at what point any type of offense is "repeated". And secondly, 9 offenses seems to be "repeated" violation to me. If we want to change the policy, I think only the infinite ban part should change, not the points at which we institute different levels of punishment. Wildyoda 00:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You make some good points! How about something like this?
User type 1st - 3rd offenses 4th offense 5th offense Repeated
Registered users 24 hours One week Two months One year
IP Addresses 24 hours One week Two weeks Three months
    • Again, I hadn't thought about it enough to really come up with the numbers, so this is all totally up for discussion. IMO, a year-long block is effectively a permaban. WhiteBoy 01:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess the IP times are shorter because different people could be using that same address at different times. Looks good. I like the groupings. Use the top table for major offense and 2nd one for minor ones (I think that's what WhiteBoy is getting at). I would put vandalism & disruption in the major group with spam and 3RRs in the minor. Some sentences guidelines will help the Admins and maybe offendors. -Fnlayson 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Much better guideline. I still think it's ridiculous for people to violate it even that much, but the problem there is with idiotic users, not how we deal with them. And a year-long ban is effectively a permaban, but maybe with this actively enforced and pointed out to violators, it will be enough to make the point so we don't have to go that far. Wildyoda 01:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure this is the place for me to bring this up, but I'm actually not a huge fan of the existing vandalism system anyway. Obvious vandalism shouldn't NEED warnings - the person vandalizing the site knows they're doing something detrimental and shouldn't be surprised if they suddenly can't vandalize anymore. There has been more than one occasion where I've decided to skip the warning phase entirely. Furthermore, if they don't get it after one, MAYBE two, warning blocks, they aren't likely to get it the third time, either, I don't think we need a "Third Instance" column, instead treating it as "repeated." jSarek 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with jSarek in that I sometimes skip the warning, or only warn once. I caught someone vandalizing the Jaina Solo article with sexual stuff that Mum and Dad wouldn't want any kiddies reading and banned their sorry hide. However, for 3RR violations, I like the third table WhiteBoy has proposed. Obviously, there needs to be some admin discretion- especially in the case of shared IPs. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Obvious vandalism zhould equal instant ban, sometimes permanent. And for the 3RR, the third table seems best, except I think 5th offense for registered users should be one month, 6th two months, then permanent. Opinions? Chack Jadson 23:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Who on this planet edit-wars five times and gets banned for it five times and still doesn't learn? It's not that hard to take it to the talk page. How many times has the average user ever even broken 3RR? Anyone who's breaking it that much is a problem case. If you've gotten warned or banned for anything even three times, you'd darn well better learn. If you can't learn not to break the rules, it's not Wookieepedia's fault. I think this is rather accommodationist for an offense that will not be committed that many times by anyone who isn't cruising for trouble anyway. Havac 02:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Bah! I'm all for civility, but I think it's much more reasonable that getting into an edit war is less of an offense than say, blanking a page or making a flagrant personal attack. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I say if they vandalize and they know they're doing it, give 'em hell. I try not to permaban IPs due to the reason of shared proxies, but any users that are obvious, especially a Willy on Wheels, get the full permaban. However, there is no warning from me. As for 3RR, I agree with the third table as well. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There are some people who will continually revert what they see as "incorrect information". There's at least one pair of users I can think of who seem to spend half their time reverting one another: frequently, both of them have good points, one or both of them is at least polite in the protracted talk page arguments, and I think they spend the rest of their time making unambigously good contributions, so I'd hate to lose them. I like WhiteBoy's second table as a guideline for 3RR violations: in fact, I wouldn't mind expanding its use for other minor disruptive acts. It would be the flip side of our existing policy of blocking obvious blatant vandals without warning. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I like WhiteBoy's tables, and I agree that short bans can be effective. Perhaps even a one, six, or twelve-hour "cool-down" ban would be a very useful tool (I'm thinking of myself for this as well). However, I do think that with edit-wars, there can be a problem with the fact that Mods are generally--and understandably--uninterested in policing these ridiculous and unneccessary arguments; that's going to prevent effective resolutions, and leave spoor (including my own Ewok-droppings) all over the place. Any effective way to clean this up would be welcomed! --McEwok 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • one or both of them is at least polite in the protracted talk page arguments
I would just like to point out how politeness should never be confused with the ability to back up your arguments, either in the workplace or in private. Assuming one leads to the other is a big no-no. VT-16 16:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it depends on what you mean by non-"politeness". If someone is stating a solid argument forcefully, then that's probably fair enough--though even that might be unneccessary and counterproductive, annoying people who disagree, or people who're bored of the debate. Any other non-"politeness" seems completely unneccessary. The focus should be on the strength of the argument, and in either case, I don't believe a failure of politeness is ever strictly necessary for the discussion. It's not quite relevant for 3RRs, but I think it is something that we could think about how to prevent, in the context of avoiding edit-wars and talk-page silliness. --McEwok 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And I would point out that the converse is also true - that solid argumentation should never be confused for the ability to discuss things in a socially acceptable manner. It takes both to be an effective communicator. jSarek 21:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll supported this under the sole condition that it's agreed that the next time Jack breaks any rule, he is permabanned. I think that that is an acceptable compromise, because as it stands, nothing else here is remotely a compromise, it is a total give in to Jack's supporters. Kuralyov 23:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Hardly. If Option 2 is what wins in the Forum:Nebulax vote, then Jack will be banned for two months if he violates it again, and finally for a year at a time. I would say that's a fairly good compromise between 24 hours and perma-ban. WhiteBoy 08:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Block lengths

I added major offenses from the first table. What about this? -Fnlayson 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding vandalism: First Minor offense First Major offense
2-3 Minor offenses 		Second Major offense
4th Minor offense 		Third Major offense
5th Minor offense 		Repeated
Registered users Warning 24 hours One week Two months One year (currently Infinite)
IP Addresses Warning 24 hours One week Two weeks Three months
  • Personally, my thought is that the major offenses can probably stay the same as what we have on the current WP:BP. WhiteBoy 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Fine with me. That happens to be the same as above except for a warning on first major offense. I should have changed "Regarding vandalism:" something more general. Something to separate major and minor offenses (vandalism, 3RR and others) seems like a good idea. -Fnlayson 15:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • So no matter how many times you edit war, you can never be perma-banned? I'm afraid that's a tad ridiculous. This might not be the wiki equivalent of murder, but it's hardly littering either. Havac 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • That was carried down from above (maybe WhiteBoy's suggestion). A couple years or so might as well permanent on the Internet, imo. Whatever. Added warning for first minor to table above. -Fnlayson 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
          • We need to keep the option of permanent blocks on the table, though. (And, of course, keep the point in the blocking policy about permanently blocking obvious vandalism-only accounts/sockpuppets/bad usernames without warnings if necessary. Just thought I'd point it out, though I don't think anyone's suggested putting a stop to that practice.) —Silly Dan (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Why is it so important we have a perma-ban, rather than a year ban? I mean, a year is still a long time, long enough for the person to possibly lose interest. Chack Jadson 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Possibly lose interest. If we mean for a user to be gone for good, the user should be gone for good. If reason exists for them to come back, they should have to petition to be unbanned; they shouldn't just set their calendar to flash at them in a year to start what they were doing all over again. jSarek 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
                • Remember we are talking about 3RR and other minor violations here. My intention with this discussion was not at all to change the current blocking policy, which is for major violations like vandalism. My intention is to get something similar defined for minor violations like 3RR. I am not suggesting we take out perma-bans for those major violations. Now that I've clarified that, IMHO, a year is effectively a perma-ban. If someone wants to set a calendar reminder to come violate 3RR in a year, then I suppose you're right...they could get their once-a-year kick. But on the flip side it also allow time for a person to actually change. It leaves hope that the person has actually grown as a person. If they haven't...we give em another year to "think about it." At worst, we have a once-a-year problem. At best, we have person who has grown and becomes a good contributor. I'd rather err on the side of optimism. WhiteBoy 06:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the problem here is in terminology. Whiteboy, you're opinion is that a violation of 3RR is a minor offense, not equal to outright vandalism. I think there are those that disagree with you and would categorize it closer to, if not fully in line with, straight up vandalism. Consider a user that has a history of engaging in violations of 3RR at almost every possible opportunity. In that situation, I can definitely see how that editor's actions could be seen as closer to vandalism than any kind of "minor" violation. --School of Thrawn 101 06:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There are also degrees of vandalism, from minor like adding a silly phrase to major such as blanking a page. -Fnlayson 06:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Right, but my point is that I think that there are multiple different point of views here that may or may not be conflicting. Whiteboy views a 3RR violation as a minor offense. While I agree that a genuine mistaken violation of the 3RR policy is most definitely a minor offense, I can see the perspective of some editors in that a deliberate, constant breach of 3RR is not a minor offense. --School of Thrawn 101 06:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Exactamundo. Havac 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Voting

We never did really vote on this, so... let's vote. Here are the two options suggested:

Current guidelines

Regarding vandalism: First instance Second instance Third instance Repeated
Registered users Warning One week Two months Infinite
IP addresses Warning 24 hours Two weeks Three months
  1. Havac 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 10:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Ozzel 22:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted option 1

User type 1st - 3rd offenses 4th - 6th offenses 7th - 9th offenses Repeated
Registered users 24 hours One week Two months Infinite
IP Addresses 24 hours One week Two weeks Three months
  1. WhiteBoy 15:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. This won't overrule the principle that admins can use their judgement, of course. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Under the strict caveat that we assume good faith, and/or allow for stupidity instead of malice. Warnings will continue to be a part of the blocking policy, correct? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Master Aban Fiolli (Alpheridies University ComNet) NR Seal 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted option 2

Regarding vandalism: First Minor offense First Major offense
2-3 Minor offenses 		Second Major offense
4th Minor offense 		Third Major offense
5th Minor offense 		Repeated
Registered users Warning 24 hours One week Two months One year (currently Infinite)
IP Addresses Warning 24 hours One week Two weeks Three months
  1. Yep. The long term ban length doesn't matter much to me; Infinite, 2 years, 1 year are all fine. -Fnlayson 00:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)