Jim Cecropia said:
I hope you generally support the idea that if an article gets too contentious, "locking is better than blocking."
I don't agree with this in all cases. Sometimes there are just one or two people whos editing is problematic, and it's wrong to prevent *everybody* editing it in such cases. It would be cool if we could block an editor from editing a specific article, but that kind of granularity isn't yet available so a block is sometimes the way to take the most disruptive elements out of circulation for a few hours. It needs emphasizing that the length of the block is at the sysop's discretion. It can be anything *up to* 24 hours. Even two hours can be a pretty effective block for people who are already in an edit war. I also disagree with you on the idea that reverts by multiple users violate the spirit of the 3RR. In my opinion they exemplify it, and this is supported explicitly by the text of WP:3RR, though it rightly points out that extended disputes are better dealt with by protection rather than edit warring: "This policy applies to each person. Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the 3RR specifically does not apply to groups. If the edit really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it—and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct. If you like, chat with other Wikipedians whom you respect, and ask them if they could take a look. If you and the person you've asked to help have both needed to revert three times, then it is probably time to ask for the page to be protected and to start looking into dispute resolution."