[WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability

[David Gerard]

On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

> >- is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
> >falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they
> >frequently can't or won't learn.

> Well, after warning someone about the 3RR because I saw that he had
> reverted twice in a couple hours (with some snippy edit summaries), he
> made the following elaborate argument that he had done nothing wrong.
> You can see my painful, and ultimately fruitless, attempt to explain
> the situation to him at [[User talk:Freemarkets]].
> "According to baseball rules, if one has "more than 2 strikes" called
> against him while at bat, that player will be called "out." In other
> words, each batter is "entitled" to 2 strikes before being called
> "out." According to Wikipedia rules, if one edits a page "more than
> three times" in a 24 hour period, he is subject to being blocked. How
> is it, then, that that rule does NOT "entitle" an editor to "three
> reverts" without being called out? If one must break a rule to be
> blocked, and one cannot break the rule without reverting more than 3
> times in 24 hours, then how have I violated the rule, and how would I
> be subject to being banned? Further, of what use is your
> warning?--Freemarkets  11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)"


What a pity being that wilfully clueless isn't a blocking offence. At
least not the first time.


- d.