On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/05, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> No. The current wording (including the bit about
the electric fence)
> expresses the spirit quite accurately, down to the bit about its
> electric fence nature.
> Bottom line: unless it's to fix simple vandalism as defined at
> [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]], there is no right way to revert more than
> three times in 24 hours. If you break 3RR, you are doing something
> completely wrongly.
The electric fence analogy gives people the false
impression that they
can walk *just up to the edge* and even reach their finger toward it.
This is why we keep seeing fourth reverts at 24 hours and a few
minutes after the first.
I'd rather we were more clear that people are not "safe" walking right
next to the fence like so many think they are. Electric fences don't
move when necessary to protect the Wiki. 3RR does (and should) move
occasionally.
Further, a guard dog can catch the scent of an intruder in disguise,
much like we sniff out sock puppets.
Honestly, I think that anyone who reads [[WP:3RR]] and fails to understand:
"The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric
fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users
an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse
reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly
discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with
others."
- is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they
frequently can't or won't learn.
- d.