Oh, dont be so absolutist. Youve been here long enough to remember how thin support for 3RR originally was (and for good reason). If the rule is infallible, what actually confirms this --ie. reviews and corrects the rules when they are not? I cant go around filing Arbcom cases for every sysop whom I think is acting like a jerk in enforcing "da rulz." (Rather, it seems quite natural to emulate them ;).
This is not to say that I want to be be a jerk to people, but I am saying that if the rule is fucked people are going to get fucked too. FYI thats a problem, and one which may outweight the value of keeping any one article from being trashed by reverts.
Since when is the energy of contributors of less value than a controversial rule --one which can easily be substituted by a better protection process? Or better yet: one which, if it can be the basis for a block, should be known well enough to be appropriately enforced (all guilty parties) in the first place?
SV
--- Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
You know, I might think this was a problem if it weren't for the fact that a blind revert war is never an acceptable way to deal with any kind of content dispute _whatsoever_. If you reverted a content change more than 3 times in 24 hours, you aren't editing the way you're supposed to be. Period. If someone is not blocking fairly, that is their fault, not the fault of the rule.
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com