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

Sun Feb 13 21:54:56 UTC 2005

Mark Pellegrini (mapellegrini at comcast.net) [050213 06:31]:

> The three revert rule was not meant to be applied mechanically for every 
> person who violates the rule - in fact, the phrasing (which I wrote) makes this 
> clear. Admins are expected to use their discretion when blocking people for 
> violating it, and SHOULD NOT be blocking every person who reverts three times. 
> Just my 2 cents. 

It's a pity you didn't vote in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darwin-Lincoln_dispute/Proposed_decision
;-) I wrote the first sentence "The three revert rule is an electric fence,
not an entitlement." I think it's a safe enough rule because it's so easily
reversible - getting an even slightly questionable 3RR block reversed is
really easy.

- d.