The three revert rule is now bad policy, specifically in the way it has been allowed to evolve.

Firstly, it is badly named: if three reverts is not an entitlement then it should not be called that, and in practice three reverts or fewer, or over a longer period, have got editors blocked under the general provision to block disruptive users.

Secondly, a 'revert' is not clearly defined. Lots of things which aren't reverts are included, while plenty that is a revert is excluded.

Thirdly, enforcing admins rarely look intelligently at what is actually happening in an article. It is very easy to find that POV pushers use it to enforce their position.

Fourthly, it is being enforced in a way that discourages compromise. Editors who always revert back to their version are treated just the same as editors who continue to disagree but propose compromise wording instead.

Fifthly, despite the complicated and questionable interpretation involved in working out whether the rule is engaged, there is no way in practice to expunge the block log where the interpretation is proved inaccurate.

Sixthly, the fact that new anonymous or IP users can claim ignorance of the rule and be unblocked while experienced editors cannot, means that enforcement actually discriminates against the experienced Wikipedian old hands.