On 9/9/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Blocking people isn't going to help y'all decide what version the page should be, and will probably just make it hard for anyone to work together.
No, of course it isn't. But talk page discussion is, and the implied peer pressure from the consequences of edit warring (getting editing privileges revoked for a while) is designed to force people to go to the talk page if they can't work out their differences through editing.
I suggest you get rid of per-user 3RR and replace it with some sort of per-article revert rule, which results in article protection if a limit is exceeded. Then y'all can actually talk about content instead of quibbling over who deserves to be blocked and who doesn't.
Edit warring can be hard to define, but that's the reason for having the 3RR - it's a nice clear rule with only a few clear exceptions (although the exceptions have been getting bloated again recently, time to give it another spring cleaning methinks) so that anyone who breaks it will get blocked.
Using protection more often instead of blocking is often brought up but the fundamental problem with that is that the consequences attach to the article, and not to the people who were edit warring. It's like imprisoning someone who just got mugged.
If admins do their job properly, and block anyone who breaks the 3RR, then it all works quite nicely. All of the problems around the 3RR are not to do with the 3RR itself, rather they arise when admins don't apply it properly (ie, when they don't apply it indiscriminately).