Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
MartinHarper (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
# [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 03:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
# [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 03:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
||
# [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 03:07, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) |
# [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 03:07, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) |
||
# [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 03:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|||
===No=== |
===No=== |
||
Revision as of 03:08, 14 November 2004
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)
The purpose of this proposal is that the arbitration committee members (as a whole) want to reduce the load of 3RR violation cases we see.
- If you violate the 3 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.
This poll will last for 2 weeks, ending at 03:00 on November 28, 2004.
Yes
- Jimbo Wales 03:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- →Raul654 03:07, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Martin 03:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)