If you make four reverts in 24 hours, you break the 3RR. To quote [[WP:3RR]]:
"In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally."
However good your intentions, if you don't strictly abide by the rule, you must take the punishment. If you break the 3RR, you break policy. If we apply the rules one way for some people and another for others, chaos will ensue. If we apply policy objectively, then no-one can make accusations of favoritism.
Smoddy
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:35:36 -0000, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote
Bad example. [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] is a content guideline, not a policy. Besides, this kind of thing should be worked out on the talk page, not by engaging in an edit war. To spell it out: even if someone is (short of outright vandalism) disobeying policy, the first thing to do is have a word with him about what he's doing. Edit warring is wrong even if you know you're right.
Yet both are blocked.
Good. I believe that is how the 3RR blocks are intended to work.
Not to sound unnecessarily hostile. But it does often seem to me that RK argues as if putting down markers for some future edit war. Tony rightly argues that we have a policy, which has very general support in its current form. It encourages a patient, measured approach. Trying to shade it in favour of the marginally-less-unreasonable party in an edit war is not something I'd support.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l