[WikiEN-l] me and my three reverts

Wed Feb 2 17:15:12 UTC 2005

Frank v Waveren said:
>
> 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."

I think this is the kind of thing that does show up when you get around to
battle testing a rule that has hitherto only been a guideline for personal
interpretation.  It surprised me too that the difference exists, but since
I very quickly encountered at least two people who had a different
interpretation I think that's a good illustration that there is no settled
interpretation yet.
I've already stated that I regard the 3RR as unsatisfactory, underpowered
because it tolerates a very high level of pointless edit warring.  With
the alternate interpretation, in my opinion, it's worse than useless, at
the very best just a drain on sysop time.  It would magnify the power of
determined edit warriors by giving them carte blanche to perform up to
three daily individual reverts on separate sections on the same article. 
If the alternate interpretation gains wide currency among edit warriors
(and it's only a matter of time), the effects will be to intensify the
problem that 3RR was intended to ease.