Tony Sidaway wrote: I don't agree with this attitude at all. Steven is a longtime, high quality editor. 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. Steven did not demand that he be unblocked, he did not ask for arbitration, he took it in good spirit while pointing out what is in fact a legitimate problem with mechanical rules like this. Now, my own personal opinion, and this might be one that Steven shares, is that given the ongoing problems with revert wars and pointless edit wars in general, the 3RR is necessary and useful *even though* it also has some unfortunate negative side effects. But I see no reason at all to take an attitude that Steven "was benched" or that he "couldn't compromise with his fellow editors". --Jimbo

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:26:09AM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote: 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." -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: BDD7 D61E fvw(a)[var.cx|stack.nl] ICQ#10074100 5D39 CF05 4BFC F57A Public key: hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net/468D62C8 FA00 7D51 468D 62C8

As would I. Agreed. I haven't seen any other admins interpreting it that way. Jay.

Frank v Waveren said: I think this is the kind of thing that does show up when you get around to battle testing a rule that has hitherto only been a guideline for personal interpretation. It surprised me too that the difference exists, but since I very quickly encountered at least two people who had a different interpretation I think that's a good illustration that there is no settled interpretation yet. I've already stated that I regard the 3RR as unsatisfactory, underpowered because it tolerates a very high level of pointless edit warring. With the alternate interpretation, in my opinion, it's worse than useless, at the very best just a drain on sysop time. It would magnify the power of determined edit warriors by giving them carte blanche to perform up to three daily individual reverts on separate sections on the same article. If the alternate interpretation gains wide currency among edit warriors (and it's only a matter of time), the effects will be to intensify the problem that 3RR was intended to ease.

Daniel Mayer wrote: It's all about a literal vs. a common sense approach to rules. A strict literal interpretation which Tony has apparently applied then starts to beg questions like, "How exactly do we interpret 'revert'?" Lying in wait like a stalking lion for anyone to violate the 3RR anywhere is clearly an abuse of process Before applying such a rule people need to look at what is going on to see if there is any hope that the warring parties may find a solution. There is no obligation to ban anybody on a fourth revert as soon as it is made; it merely becomes an available tool if it should be necessary. Literalism creates unhappy communities. The people who use it may be perfectly correct, but have as much social grace as an enraged gorilla. If in the course of these reverts there is also movement in the controversy, that is a sign of progress. The possibility remains that the combatants may find an agreeable solution after a few more reverts. The 3RR can prevent the solution. Ec

Ray Saintonge said: I'd like to make some things plain because I think both the circumstances of the block, and my expressed opinion, are being grossly mischaracterized. 1. The blocked editor who posted here had consciously made five absolutely clear, unequivocal, self-labelled reverts on the article in the space of 40 hours, four of them in the space of 24 hours. There was no "begging the question" here, and no "literal" interpretation. They were reverts and he knew it. 2. During that period of 40 hours, he had made *absolutely no other edits on the article.* 3. I do not advocate a pro-active approach to 3RR blocking; rather it is the editor's responsibility to ensure that he does not abuse his editing privileges. 4. I take a dim view of editors abusing their editing privileges and then whining about the consequences. I will pour verbal ashes on their heads. In my opinion this is as nothing to the problems they themselves cause. 5. As it happens, the decision to block was taken as a result of a call made on the administrator's noticeboard by the editor whose content was being repeatedly reverted. This was not a case of anyone lying in wait and pouncing on a poor, bewildered, hard-done-by, revert-happy editor. As both editors had breached 3RR, both were blocked.

Daniel Mayer wrote: Yes, and there are some good reasons to interpret it fairly literally, while at the same time leaving a little breathing room for common sense recognition that randomly changing one irrelevant word in a different part of the article is still a revert. The main reason to be fairly literal about it (but not obsessively so) is that the whole point of it is to keep enforcement simple. --Jimbo -- �\"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org

Pete/Pcb21 (pete_pcb21_wpmail(a)pcbartlett.com) [050203 08:47]: Other admins have the option of unblocking an egregious block. And, you know, editors have the option of not reverting more than three times in a day. - d.

On Feb 2, 2005, at 4:07 PM, David Gerard wrote: What? You mean the three revert rule doesn't mandate that I revert three times a day? Damn. -Snowspinner

Pete/Pcb21 wrote: Yes, this is a tough one. --Jimbo

Jimbo said: We'll have to agree to differ on this. That was absolutely atrocious behavior towards other editors, in my opinion.