"csherlock(a)ljh.com.au" <csherlock(a)ljh.com.au> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Well, yeah.
One point to remember about 3RR: if you get as far as *three* reverts in 24
hours, something's badly wrong. Allowing three reverts in 24 hours is one
of the things Wikipedia allows but does not condone.
- d.
Exactly. I think we need to step back a moment and understand WHY the
3RR has been created. It was created to stop those who won't edit via
consensus and thus stop all progress on articles. I'd suggest we be a
little less legalistic about it and look at each editor on a
case-by-case basis.
TBSDY
I thought that the beauty of the 3RR rule was its "simplicity" in that when a
breach is committed there is no doubt? No sooner had the ink dried on that policy update
that such a breach could lead to a 24 hour block than some of the more
"imaginative" sysops were proposing to "interpret" the intention of a
specific editor and demanding the power to block at will based on their personal
interpretation.
There is a need to indeed keep it simple or severely restrict who may block through their
personal powers for omnipotent interpretation of what another person is thinking.
Regards
Robert
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.