On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Theresa Robinson wrote:
Please forgive me if this has already been suggested;
I only just
subscribed to this list yesterday.
I think the 3-revert should be a guideline, with a direct warning on the
user's talk page when it is violated. If the user continues to revert the
page, and doesn't at that point start having a sane conversation about how
to deal with the issue, then the person is being obsequious and
uncommunicative and that is ample reason for a 24-hour ban.
While I don't entirely agree with you, Theresa, I've seen some evidence
that supports your POV:
* Sometimes even the most veteran & patient of contributors gets her/his
button pushed & lapses into a reversion war. (Of course, said contributor
shuld immediately step away form the computer & get involved in Real Life
for the next 24 hours, but I know I can take Wikipedia too seriously at
times.)
* A poor contributor was single-handedly fighting vandalism on
[[Saint Peter]], & left a thoughtful comment on the third reversion. I'm
sure other people fighting vandals feel the same way.
*I've seen statements from some contributors that they know they are likely
to get banned, & all a 24-hour ban will do is make them wait 24 hours
before continuing to revert.
I just wish there was a better way to ensure that (to use terms from
Transactional Analysis) people working on Wikipedia were listening to their
adult, & not their child. Enforcing a 3-revert rule right now seems to
be the easiest first step.
Geoff