There is a serious problem. As the number of Wikipedia rules spiral, we are seeing people figure out how to play the rules for their own personal edification. Meanwhile, three old-time users--172, AdamCarr, and Mirv, who have thousands of valuable edits to their name (regardless of what anyone might think of any of them personally)--have either been blocked or left the project in the past 24 hours. Frankly, I never supported the 3RR, either the first time it was implemented, or this, the second time. I certainly oppose the idea that it takes precedence, or is even on an equal footing, with the goal of creating an _accurate_, NPOV, open-source encyclopedia. Comments equating it with that are misguided. 3RR was put in place, not as an objective in itself, but as a means to an end, that end being the creation of an accurate corpus of human knowledge. And yet, while people are willing to block for violating the 3RR, how many people are willing to block for pushing POV or adding inaccurate information consistently? That is a problem. So I reiterate: 3RR is not a goal of Wikipedia. In an ideal world, it would not even be necessary. It is merely a means to an end. The problem begins when focus solely on 3RR, disregarding our real goals. People are gaming these rules. While I would like to believe that most people have the good of Wikipedia at heart, the fact is that it is downright impossible, given the size of Wikipedia, to follow all the arguments, follow all the reverts, and step in when necessary. It once was, but that is no longer the case. Nor is it legitimate to expect people who do not have IRC to get it and go there when they face a problem. This is not an IRC project. I do not know the solution to this problem, but I think that it should be stated. Personally, I hope that Jimbo appoints a group of trusted users to examine the problem and come up with some solutions. Danny