Dante Alighieri (dalighieri@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.