Delirium wrote:
Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:
What a minute!
When *I* voted on that poll some week ago, the poll was about whether there should be a *guideline* that reads "do not do more than three reverts" or not. Nowhere on that page did it say that the poll really was about whether to allow admins to block a user that reverts three times or not. Many of the 51+ persons that has voted probably did not either understand that the vote was about bannings. If that is what the vote is about and not just a guideline.
While that's true, I'd still like it to be decreed as a rule. If we sit around for another vote, nothing will ever get done.
I prefer guidelines instead of rules. The people who set about to "enforce" a rule can easily be as much of a problem as those they are criticising. Admittedly, some of those same people see very little difference between a guideline and a rule.
Either that, or people need to stop whining to the arbitration committee about people who revert a lot. Either come up with guidelines to fix the problem, or allow reverts to continue. We can't simply ban people who revert a lot who we don't like, and allow reverts in general to go unpunished. I, for one, will be voting against any bans for "excessive reverting" on the arbitration committee, as I do not feel this is a problem to be solved on a case-by-case basis.
I agree that these matters need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. A person who engages in a protracted revert war on a single article is very different from one who repeatedly does this across a broad range of articles.
Ec