The solution should be to contact an admin not involved in the dispute
and ask them to protect the page. Then discussion can take place to
ensure that vandalism is stopped. It is, of course, up to that admin
to make the decision about which version to protect, which could
potentially be a problem. However, the admin should be able to use
their judgement to give a sensible temporary solution - that should be
one of the criterie for their selection.
If an editor has reverted a page three times in a 24 hour period, with
the exception of **blatant** vandalism, they should be blocked.
Period. This ensures even-handedness.
If, once a matter has been discussed and a solution reached, the
change is made again, I would define this as vandalism. Thus it can
be reverted and, situation dependant, the user blocked if necessary.
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:19:33 -0700, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
One of the problems with 3RR-policy enforcement is
that admins are
supposed to treat equally the editor who is inserting an unreferenced,
unsubstantiated claim, and the editor who is trying to get rid of that
claim. One is violating [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] policy, while the
other is trying to enforce it. Yet both are blocked.
If the editor trying to enforce policy isn't allowed to violate 3RR,
then s/he must go through dispute resolution; put up an RfC (which
rarely brings useful results); or apply for mediation (which can take
months to arrange). Meanwhile the nonsense sits there for 24 hours;
then maybe there's another brief flurry of reverts, then it sits there
for another 24 hours; and this can go on for weeks, until the less
determined editor backs off.
If the process takes priority over the product, that's fine. But if
it's the production of an accurate encylopedia that is the priority,
then this is not fine.
Surely, for this reason, when looking at 3RR violations, admins should
be allowed to take into account who was violating Wikipedia's
editorial content policies and who was trying to preserve them.
WikiEN-l mailing list