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.