Some clarifications and comments (maybe unneeded, *shrug*)
[I could] say that it's policy with a capital P, [and] repeated violations are grounds for the arbitration committee to do something about it
Of course, the arbitrators are able to enforce all kinds of policies, guidelines, common practices, etc, regardless of capitalisation, but very much regarding community support and so forth, at least according to our current rules.
All parties who revert 3 or more times, anyway.
As [[wikipedia:revert]] was and is written, it is a guideline against reverting *more than three* times, not *three or more* times.
That'll work for Wik.
There are a fair number of Wikipedians who are not Wik. It's not all about the worst cases.
- * - 0 # Mu-ha-ha
Though this was funny, there's a good case for "* - * - 100 # surge protecter" to block against rogue bots and other flooding.
If we have guidelines with no means of punishing people who willfully break them then there is no incentive for them not to break them.
There are other incentives, besides punishment. Politeness. Sociability. Respect. A quiet life. Peer pressure. Friendship. Influence. Fewer revert wars, both globally and personally. We have lots of guidelines that work perfectly well without punishment, for just this reason.
I propose that we announce this vote in the mailing list
Better to announce it on [[wikipedia:current polls]].
-Martin