Jim Cecropia said:
I hope you generally support the idea that if an
article gets too
contentious, "locking is better than blocking."
I don't agree with this in all cases. Sometimes there are just one or two
people whos editing is problematic, and it's wrong to prevent *everybody*
editing it in such cases. It would be cool if we could block an editor
from editing a specific article, but that kind of granularity isn't yet
available so a block is sometimes the way to take the most disruptive
elements out of circulation for a few hours.
It needs emphasizing that the length of the block is at the sysop's
discretion. It can be anything *up to* 24 hours. Even two hours can be a
pretty effective block for people who are already in an edit war.
I also disagree with you on the idea that reverts by multiple users
violate the spirit of the 3RR. In my opinion they exemplify it, and this
is supported explicitly by the text of WP:3RR, though it rightly points
out that extended disputes are better dealt with by protection rather than
edit warring:
"This policy applies to each person. Use of sockpuppets (multiple
accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the 3RR
specifically does not apply to groups. If the edit really needs reverting
that much, somebody else will probably do it—and that will serve the vital
purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which
of two competing versions is correct. If you like, chat with other
Wikipedians whom you respect, and ask them if they could take a look. If
you and the person you've asked to help have both needed to revert three
times, then it is probably time to ask for the page to be protected and to
start looking into dispute resolution."