On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:26:09AM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:
His point in this particular case is that a mechanical rule like 3RR is flawed when it is applied in this fashion. The reverts were to different aspects of the article, and the participants were communicating.
No argument from me there. But that opinion on how the 3RR should work is apparently a minority one. I base this on asking several other ArbCom members and making an inquiry on the 3RR talk page. The rule states 'no more than 3 reverts on any page in 24 hours.' Most people take that very literally (for better or worse). I interpret 'reverts' to be the same or substantially the same revert. Oh well.
There are definitely arguments for type of 3RR rule instead of what we currently have, however I don't see how anyone could read the current 3RR page or the one at the time of the vote as meaning that.
Both clearly state:
Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.
I don't see how that could be read as anything but "make one revert. Allowed. Make another revert. Allowed. Make another revert. Allow. Make another revert. Not allowed."