User:Heimstern/3RR
Note to any who might read this: This information is old and likely no longer reflects my practice in many areas.
Glutton for punishment that I am, I sometimes process reports at WP:AN3RR, which of course means sometimes making blocks for violations of the three-revert rule. I consider the three-revert rule a flawed but necessary measure to prevent edit warring; in other words, a not-very-good solution, but one where the problem is so Very Bad that it's needed. I've had a number of questions concerning my decisions in enforcing the rule, so I've decided to write down some of how I go about this. This may be useful reading for those I have blocked, those hoping I will block someone and those concerned about a block I have made.
About how I process 3RR reports
[edit]First: I do go through the reports carefully to determine if there is in fact a violation of the rule: that is, if there are at least four reverts (other than reversions of simple vandalism or WP:BLP violations) on an article within 24 hours. The text of WP:3RR stipulates that the reverts needn't be the same revert, nor need they be pure, simple reverts, therefore I will count any edit (other than the aforementioned exceptions) whose effect is to revert, in whole or in part, another user's edit. I will also check to be reasonably sure the user is aware of the rule. I am reluctant to block users who may be unaware of the rule. We don't generally block users for vandalism or personal attacks without warnings; I don't feel we should block for 3RR without warnings, either, especially since 3RR is not nearly as intuitive a prohibition as those against vandalism and personal attacks.
I've been blocked!
[edit]Thanks to William M. Connolley, from whom I stole much of this section.
As the 3RR is intended to be preventative, not punitive, for a first offence, I'm generally willing to unblock you if you just promise not to continue edit warring. But you'd better stick to any such promise. Note also that if you've been uncivil in addition to edit warring, I may be less willing to make the unblock. Other admins: I have a tendency to process 3RR reports shortly before bedtime, so I'm often not around for unblocks. If user I've blocked for a first offence says he/she will stop, as I've outlined above, just unblock; don't worry about discussing it with me. Like I said, I would have done so myself.
Common objections and my answers
[edit]- I was reverting vandalism; it doesn't count toward 3RR.
If you can demonstrate to me that the edits you reverted truly were vandalism, I'll unblock and apologise. But as I check each revert carefully, I'm generally pretty good at noticing if your reverts were of vandalism. And no, someone removing that sentence you consider essential to the article or adding that section that is obiously nationalistic is not vandalism; rather, these are content disputes.
- My reverts were covered under WP:BLP.
I try to check these carefully, too; however, they aren't as easy to spot as vandalism, so I may have missed it. Show me where you reverted out of BLP concerns, and if it's legitimate and brings you under four reverts, I'll unblock with apologies.
- You didn't block XYZ because he/she wasn't warned. Now the article is in his/her preferred version, and I'm out of reverts. He/she got his/her way!
While protection is not involved here, the principle of Meta:The Wrong Version seems to me to apply here. It is my job as an admin to prevent edit warring, not to guarantee that the "right" version of the article is implemented. Also, if you're up to three reverts, I don't really have lots of sympathy for you, anyway, as three is really too many reverts. 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. Discuss on the talk page or head for dispute resolution if necessary. Note that, if your version is in fact the one supported by consensus, you shouldn't have to be the one to make the revert.