[WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

[Ray Saintonge]

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

>