Smoddy, clear cases of vandalism aside, admins are not allowed to choose which version of the page to protect. They are meant to protect the latest version.
Suppose you find a page that contains a serious, unreferenced claim that seems to be false, and which is making the article look stupid. You revert to an earlier version ( your revert #1), and you ask for a reputable source (a citation) on the Talk page. Another editor reverts back to the unreferenced claim (his revert #1) and doesn't respond on Talk. You revert again (your revert #2), and you ask again for a citation. The other editor reverts again (his revert #2) and ignores your request on Talk. You revert once more (your revert #3) and you beg for discussion on Talk. He ignores you and reverts again (his revert #3).
At that point, you're stuck and so is Wikipedia. If you ask for page protection, the admins will have to protect the unreferenced claim version. If you revert again, you'll be blocked. If you risk it anyway, and the other editor responds in kind, you'll both be blocked.
The 3RR violation rule is an attempt to be neutral between versions and between editors. The rule therefore ignores quality of content and quality of editors. The editor who is trying to write a high-quality article is treated the same as the editor who is editing with a reckless disregard for the truth. That is unfair, and it is damaging to Wikipedia.
Slim
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:35:21 +0000, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
It is, of course, up to that admin to make the decision about which version to protect, which could potentially be a problem.