Erik Moeller wrote:
Bjorn-
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.
Uh-huh. That'll work for Wik. He loves guidelines. They can be easily ignored.
Well, Erik, I'm sympathetic to that, but I'm not sure that a 24-hour ban power for sysops is the minimally intrusive solution.
What I tend to follow is a "strict scrutiny" rule that says that any policy involving curtailment of editing should be narrowly tailored to achieve some legitimate interest.
It might make more sense for me to just say that it's policy with a capital P, but to *not* introduce the 24-hour temp ban idea. Rather, it's that repeated violations are grounds for the arbitration committee to do something about it, for example.
There *is* a legitimate interest here. Edit warring is unproductive. Revert-edit-warring is the least productive kind of edit war, too. A revert is a slap in the face. Sometimes (vandalism), a slap in the face is the right thing to do. But other times, it's just a way to say 'screw you' to someone who is sincerely trying to find a compromise.
--Jimbo