On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 12:57:25PM -0500, steven l. rubenstein wrote:
However, I think the real need for the 3-revert rule is to put a brake on serious behavioral problems. The problem with the 3-revert rule is that it is utterly neutral to content. I think when there are repeated problems with content, we may need other mechanisms.
Quite. I think being content-neutral is actually one of the 3RRs great strengths. It's only there to modify behaviour, not to dictate what the article should be.
For problem users who repeatedly make bad edits, try to get some more community involved; Post a notice on newbies or the village pump or even on a few friends' talk pages, try to get more people involved (though there were quite a few others involved here already, so just waiting for them would probably have been sufficient), that way you can all stay far away from three reverts and have the other person make a fool of themselves.
For continued problem users even the 3RR combined with a large group of people disagreeing isn't going to help of course, but I don't think we should look to the 3RR in such cases, it isn't part of dispute resolution process.