slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:
Given this intepretation of 3RR, there's no way
Adam could have kept
the material out, except by calling other editors to help him, which
he should have done, but it's a bit silly to have to do that over a
content dispute that is straighforwardly factual, as it is in this
case.
Put another way, "there's no way Adam could have kept the material out,
except for the way that doesn't break the rules and result in a 24-hour ban." I
don't think it's silly to bring in more people when there's a dispute, how
else can one determine which side of the dispute is correct (if any)?
But if we're going to concentrate on process and
ignore quality, then
shouldn't neither or both editors be blocked in this case?
One broke the letter of the 3RR and the other broke the spririt of it,
but it's a lot trickier trying to sanction someone for breaking the
spirit of a rule since that's open to much wider interpretation. The
letter of the rule is fairly simple and straightforward, don't see a
problem with strictly enforcing it.
Inserting factually incorrect material is bad for Wikipedia, but IMO so
is revert-warring.