Forum:CT Archive/Multiple 3RR's

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.

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:

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?


 * 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)