[WikiEN-l] me and my three reverts

Wed Feb 2 18:27:13 UTC 2005

Ray Saintonge (saintonge at telus.net) [050203 05:02]:

> 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  

Of course, editors have the option of not performing more than 3 reverts in
24 hours ...

> 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.

They should be doing it on the talk pages, not on the article. That some
revert wars may achieve a solution does not make them a good tool for
achieving a solution. Three reverts in 24 hours is an electric fence, not
an entitlement.

Remember, an admin is free to unblock someone blocked for 3RR if they think
they won't do it again and understand it's a bad idea.

- d.