[WikiEN-l] 3RR applied to both parties?

Fri Mar 4 07:03:29 UTC 2005

slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>Given this intepretation of 3RR, there's no way Adam could have kept
>the material out, except by calling other editors to help him, which
>he should have done, but it's a bit silly to have to do that over a
>content dispute that is straighforwardly factual, as it is in this
>case.
>
Put another way, "there's no way Adam could have kept the material out, except for the way that doesn't break the rules and result in a 24-hour ban." I don't think it's silly to bring in more people when there's a dispute, how else can one determine which side of the dispute is correct (if any)?

>But if we're going to concentrate on process and ignore quality, then
>shouldn't neither or both editors be blocked in this case?
>  
>
One broke the letter of the 3RR and the other broke the spririt of it, 
but it's a lot trickier trying to sanction someone for breaking the 
spirit of a rule since that's open to much wider interpretation. The 
letter of the rule is fairly simple and straightforward,  don't see a 
problem with strictly enforcing it.

Inserting factually incorrect material is bad for Wikipedia, but IMO so 
is revert-warring.