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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l