User blog comment:Zane T 69/Wiki Improvements/@comment-778071-20160626023744/@comment-778071-20160627113912

@Blaziken, Zane: I encourage both of you to take a closer look at Supernatural Wiki:Three-revert rule. None of your concerns is actually justified.

"In the following cases, exceptions can be made to this policy to permit reversion as often as needed: Blatant vandalism, such as page blanking." - vandalism is vandalism. The three-revert rule is for good-faith users who are engaging in an edit war because they have differences in opinion about article content. It is for cases of legitimate dispute where both users have a solid case, and the spirit of the rule is to direct the users to a talkpage - rather than argue over edit summaries, which would not be conducive or helpful.

Zane, your scenario is somewhat melodramatic. The policy does not state "Leaving long edit summaries is liable to get you blocked." If you exercise more caution in your reading and take into account the surrounding context in that paragraph, you will realise the point being made is that: "If you are in an edit war, simply because you're leaving long explanations in your edit summary to justify your revert does not mean that you are exempt from the 3RR rule. In fact, arguments over edit summaries is exactly what we are trying to avoid." I should also add that any admin worth his salt will block according to the spirit of the policy, and not blindly ban new users who may be confused about the editing process.

This is a carefully-considered policy that has been adapted from Wikipedia's own three-revert rule. Even if you still disagree with the reasons I've presented here, I encourage you to think for yourselves why Wikipedia has adopted this practice for nearly a decade. Cheers.