Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Francs2000 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Gzornenplatz (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===No=== |
===No=== |
||
#The "may" and the "up to" invites unequal and arbitrary enforcement. I would support a policy that says ''If you violate the [[wikipedia:three revert rule|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. [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]] 03:22, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:22, 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 they see.
- 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.
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)
- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:09, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
- [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:09, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Of course. --Conti|✉ 03:13, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Ambi 03:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Rje 03:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Mattworld 03:19, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Whoops, looked away and missed out on voting 4th. James F. (talk) 03:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Antandrus 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No
- 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)