J.F. de Wolff wrote:

There is one very crucial problem with the 3RR, which needs to be taken into consideration by the sysop who is banning. Sometimes particular articles attract several edit warriors, and often it's two or three against one. If that one person "uses up" his three reverts, the others still have several to go before they are also banned. How can we avoid an unequality like this from happening? I otherwise warmly endorse the 3RR.

I think in a case like that, it's time to get more people involved in the article anyway, people who are less emotionally committed to one outcome or the other, and who may be able to find a compromise version that is reasonably satisfactory to both sides.

There are cases, see [[:en:Pila]] for example, where the issue is very very unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but the battle seems to be nowhere near conclusion.

(For those who don't know: there's an ongoing revert war there about the name *in German*, not English, of a fairly obscure town of 77,000 people in northwestern Poland. If the Onion really wanted to be funny, they should have written their article about German names of things in Poland. The issue is not the name itself, but rather the question of whether it is the _German name_ or the _former German name_. Gzornenplatz is uncompromising on the issue, and seems willing to fight it until the bitter end.)

Getting more people involved might help. In fact, I'm going to do a good deed and try it myself right now.

--Jimbo