[WikiEN-l] me and my three reverts

Wed Feb 2 17:56:04 UTC 2005

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>You couldn't compromise with your fellow editors so you were benched. 
>>>Tough, but that's how it is.
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't agree with this attitude at all.
>>    
>>
>Me neither. Tony's whole email seemed unnecessarily mean-spirited to me. 
>
It's all about a literal vs. a common sense approach to rules.  A 
strict  literal interpretation which Tony has apparently applied then 
starts to beg questions like, "How exactly do we interpret 'revert'?"  
Lying in wait like a stalking lion for anyone to violate the 3RR 
anywhere is clearly an abuse of process  

Before applying such a rule people need to look at what is going on to 
see if there is any hope that the warring parties may find a solution.  
There is no obligation to ban anybody on a fourth revert as soon as it 
is made; it merely becomes an available tool if it should be necessary.

>>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.
>
Literalism creates unhappy communities.  The people who use it may be 
perfectly correct, but have as much social grace as an enraged gorilla.

>>Now, my own personal opinion, and this might be one that Steven
>>shares, is that given the ongoing problems with revert wars and
>>pointless edit wars in general, the 3RR is necessary and useful *even
>>though* it also has some unfortunate negative side effects.
>>    
>>
>I also share that opinion. 
>  
>
If in the course of these reverts there is also movement in the 
controversy, that is a sign of progress.  The possibility remains that 
the combatants may find an agreeable solution after a few more reverts.  
The 3RR can prevent the solution.

Ec