[WikiEN-l] More thoughts on the 3-revert rule

Sun Feb 13 03:18:30 UTC 2005

Tony Sidaway said:
> Seriously, I think we should be aiming for 1RR.

I supported the 3 revert-rule with the understanding it would be interpreted 
in the sense that Mark Pellegrini expressed earlier, and that I think Jimbo 
has also indicated. If the 3RR were to come up for reconsideration in its 
present form, I do not think I would continue to support it. And that is not 
simply because I fell victim to it (although that has motivated me to 
express my concerns presently). It appears to me that it has become fodder 
for vindictive qualties in editors, and encourages counting reverts and 
playing gamesmanship to the brink rather than assuming good faith, engaging 
in civil discourse, and trying to reach consensus. Disagreements are a 
natural part of the wiki-editing process and we really should not be 
surprised that otherwise well-meaning persons sometimes revert an article 
more than three times in a day. However, such disagreements do not 
necessarily require punitive actions. If discussion is occurring and 
progressing, then what is the real harm if the article is reverted a few 
times in the course of a day?

Yes, there is an illusion of fairness in having a black and white rule with 
an absolute threshold. However, I do not think such a standard is very 
wiki-like in spirit. In my case, because Netoholic saw fit to continue in 
pursuing punitive actions against me, even though there was no longer any 
disagreement between us, I feel very little good will towards him. While he 
had been growing in my estimation through doing much good work lately 
(despite some controversies early on), at this point I have absolutely no 
respect for him whatsoever as a responsible wiki-editor. While I will 
certainly be much more cognizent of the number of reverts in encounters with 
him from now on, I am less inclined than ever to give even the slightest 
accomodation to him in discussions of substantive matters. Is that petty of 
me? Yes, but I am human. Could it have been avoided? You bet. Instead of 
continuing to pursue punitive action against (of which I was unware by the 
way), if he had simply tried talking with me, either on the article 
discussion page or my user page, we could have worked out our differences in 
a civil manner and he most likely would have gone up in my estimation. I 
mean, I think I am a reasonable person. I may be a little prone to making 
smart-ass remarks sometimes, but if someone has a good reason for what they 
are doing, I am willing to discuss any objections I might have.  However, 
the blind application of the 3RR seems to have obliterated whatever good 
will may have been possible between us. It will likely take a very long time 
for either of us to be able to assume good faith on the part of the other. 
Perhaps I am an exception. Perhaps other people will find that the 
mechanistic application of the 3RR actually encourages discussion and 
promotes the assumption of good faith. I kinda doubt it though.

Bkonrad