[WikiEN-l] me and my three reverts

Wed Feb 2 16:24:17 UTC 2005

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:26:09AM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> > His point in this
> > particular case is that a mechanical rule like 3RR is flawed when it
> > is applied in this fashion.  The reverts were to different aspects of
> > the article, and the participants were communicating.
> 
> No argument from me there. But that opinion on how the 3RR should work is
> apparently a minority one. I base this on asking several other ArbCom members
> and making an inquiry on the 3RR talk page. The rule states 'no more than 3
> reverts on any page in 24 hours.' Most people take that very literally (for
> better or worse). I interpret 'reverts' to be the same or substantially the
> same revert. Oh well.

There are definitely arguments for type of 3RR rule instead of what we
currently have, however I don't see how anyone could read the current
3RR page or the one at the time of the vote as meaning that.

Both clearly state: 

   Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.

I don't see how that could be read as anything but "make one revert.
Allowed. Make another revert. Allowed. Make another revert. Allow. Make
another revert. Not allowed."

-- 
Frank v Waveren                                      Fingerprint: BDD7 D61E
fvw@[var.cx|stack.nl] ICQ#10074100                      5D39 CF05 4BFC F57A
Public key: hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net/468D62C8              FA00 7D51 468D 62C8

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20050202/7f2180eb/attachment.pgp 