[WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

[Martin Harper]

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