nsh said:
A good wikipedian, whose name I forget, explained to 3RR to me in a
very useful way, explaining that it is best to be seen as a slap in the
face because if one has to resort to reverting the same page
thrice in one day, there is something wrong with one's
editing/dispute-resolution procedures.
So why don't we start viewing the 3RR as a good idea, an inspiration
for finding better ways to overcome dispute and achieve consensus, and
a tool to let people know when they need to introspect. But let us not
view is as a commandment, set in stone, to be applied rigidly.
Those two paragraphs seem to be mutually contradictory. Surely if three
reverts is a sign that there is something wrong (a sentiment with which I
strongly agree) we don't want to just regard 3RR as "a good idea, an
inspiration." It should be taken as what it is: a sign that we're doing
something seriously wrong.
We shouldn't, therefore, be too surprised if someone comes along and gives
us 24 hours off the task of editing, during which we can reconsider our
editing style.