Let's talk about why the violations of some users are ignored, such as Blankfaze during the exact same edit war that got me banned.
For the record, during that edit war, I reverted exactly 4 times. Orginally, only 3, but [[User:Danny]] told me to revert a 4th time and he would protect the page. Ask him... I was rather hesistant to break the 3 revert rule.
So not only did you break the 3-revert guideline without any repercussions, you were actually *encouraged* to do so by another admin. In my opinion that only raises more questions.
It's meant for vandalism of any kind, anonymous or no. And yes, I agree that according to our policies, this situation should not be handled with the rollback button, which is why I brought up the point in the first place.
I was basing my statement on [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] which says that the revert button "expedites the reversion of edits by anonymous vandals." I'm not sure where there's an actual guideline as to how it should be used, though.
Anthony DiPierro writes:
So not only did you break the 3-revert guideline without any repercussions, you were actually *encouraged* to do so by another admin. In my opinion that only raises more questions.
Anthony, you are acting incredibly childishly. If you hadn't reverted Danny seconds after he reverted (before he could protect) then he wouldn't have *had* to ask me. There are exceptions to all rules, Anthony, and I think when a user is acting like a *5-year-old* with a main page template, a small incursion becomes necessary. It was either (a) continue to engage in an endless revert war visible to anyone visiting the site, or (b) put an end to it.
I chose the latter.