Ec wrote:
I can support something like the three revert concept as a guideline, but certainly not as a rule, and even less as an enforceable rule.
Last time I checked the 3-revert rule had well over 80% support from a wide-ranging and large group of Wikipedians. That makes it a policy here in wikiland.
What there is, is a good deal of disagreement on how to enforce this policy.
Martin's idea for protecting the version a 3-revert-rule-breaking edit warrior does not like seems to be a reasonable extension of our current protection guidelines (and are now a part of those guidelines thanks to Jimbo's support for the idea).
I would like to add a three-strike policy on top of that: if a user breaks the 3-revert rule 3 times or more in a certain time-frame, then that user gets a 24 hour time out (which could get longer for repeatedly striking out until a certain number is reached - then it is off the arbitration committee).
Sadly, we are not a small little community anymore where informal means of running the shop could do just fine. We need clear rules and clear ways to enforce those rules.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com