Ray Saintonge said:
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
I'd like to make some things plain because I think both the circumstances
of the block, and my expressed opinion, are being grossly
mischaracterized.
1. The blocked editor who posted here had consciously made five
absolutely clear, unequivocal, self-labelled reverts on the article in the
space of 40 hours, four of them in the space of 24 hours. There was no
"begging the question" here, and no "literal" interpretation. They
were
reverts and he knew it.
2. During that period of 40 hours, he had made *absolutely no other edits
on the article.*
3. I do not advocate a pro-active approach to 3RR blocking; rather it is
the editor's responsibility to ensure that he does not abuse his editing
privileges.
4. I take a dim view of editors abusing their editing privileges and then
whining about the consequences. I will pour verbal ashes on their heads.
In my opinion this is as nothing to the problems they themselves cause.
5. As it happens, the decision to block was taken as a result of a call
made on the administrator's noticeboard by the editor whose content was
being repeatedly reverted. This was not a case of anyone lying in wait
and pouncing on a poor, bewildered, hard-done-by, revert-happy editor. As
both editors had breached 3RR, both were blocked.