Erik Moeller wrote:
Bjorn-
When *I* voted on that poll some week ago, the
poll was about whether
there should be a *guideline* that reads "do not do more than three
reverts" or not.
Uh-huh. That'll work for Wik. He loves guidelines. They can be easily
ignored.
Well, Erik, I'm sympathetic to that, but I'm not sure that a 24-hour
ban power for sysops is the minimally intrusive solution.
What I tend to follow is a "strict scrutiny" rule that says that any
policy involving curtailment of editing should be narrowly tailored to
achieve some legitimate interest.
It might make more sense for me to just say that it's policy with a
capital P, but to *not* introduce the 24-hour temp ban idea. Rather,
it's that repeated violations are grounds for the arbitration
committee to do something about it, for example.
There *is* a legitimate interest here. Edit warring is unproductive.
Revert-edit-warring is the least productive kind of edit war, too. A
revert is a slap in the face. Sometimes (vandalism), a slap in the
face is the right thing to do. But other times, it's just a way to
say 'screw you' to someone who is sincerely trying to find a
compromise.
--Jimbo