Dante Alighieri (dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com) [050204 11:48]:
Anyway, I'd also like to point out that I'm
not certain that the ArbCom (which is currently reviewing the 3RR) has the authority and
jurisdiction to do so unless the question is raised in a case which they are hearing. I
suggest that Slrubenstein either request Arbitration against the rule itself (if that
seems feasible within the bounds of our system) or else against me for blocking him (which
is probably the best bet, and to which I don't object) so that the ArbCom can
officially look into the matter.
If you look at the Darwin-Lincoln case that's currently in arbitration,
you'll see a statement of principle on the 3RR which has gained six votes
and so looks like passing (if no-one changes their vote before it closes):
"3RR is not an entitlement
"4) The three revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR
is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users
an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse
reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly
discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others."
Although it doesn't directly address your point, "an electric fence, not an
entitlement" should reasonably indicate that if you do a fourth revert in
24 hours, you may get zapped.
The point of the 3RR is that doing four reverts in 24 hours was held (and
then voted) to be *such* a stupid and counterproductive thing to do in the
live article space that it was safe to write an almost mechanical rule to
cover it. Repeated reverts are bad!
And, as I pointed out, other admins can (and have) remove 3RR blocks,
presumably if they feel the editor in question won't offend again, which is
presuambly why slr was quickly unblocked in this case. Not that that says
anything against Dante, who was blocking per 3RR.
- d.