Robert said:
Slim writes:
> One of the problems with 3RR-policy enforcement
> is that admins are supposed to treat equally the
> editor who is inserting an unreferenced,
> unsubstantiated claim, and the editor who is
> trying to get rid of that claim.
Seems reasonable.
> One is violating
> [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]] policy, while the other
> is trying to enforce it.
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.
> If the editor trying to enforce policy isn't
allowed
> to violate 3RR, then s/he must go through dispute
> resolution; put up an RfC (which rarely brings
> useful results); or apply for mediation (which
> can take months to arrange).
Or alternatively just tell the other editor what the problem is.
> Meanwhile the nonsense sits there for 24 hours;
Twenty-four whole hours! Horrors! There are uncited statements in nearly
every article on Wikipedia, some of which have been in for over a year.
If something is unsourced, search for a source and add it. If something is
nonsense and the original editor doesn't see it that way, someone else
will come along and fix it. If they don't, just put a note on a friend's
talk page and ask them to have a look at it. There is no excuse for
revert warring.