On 1/16/06, Brock Batsell wikipedia@theskeptik.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2006, at 12:02 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
No it doesn't. 3RR can be about any edit unless there's a concensus. One should always discuss a change and try to come to an agreement rather than revert more than 3 times. If it's clearly vandalism and everyone but the vandal agrees to that, 3RR is in fact not a problem at all. Vandalism can always be reverted (though usually it's best to still not violate 3RR). In content disputes you always need to take care not to break the 3 revert rule.
Mgm
I don't understand what you said that is contrary to what I said. I quote from the 3RR policy:
The policy states that an editor must not perform more than threereversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion. (This does not apply to self- reverts or correction of simple vandalism)
I said that exemption from the 3RR rule only applies to reverting vandalism, which is word-for-word from the policy. The policy is clear that content disputes do not count as "simple vandalism".
[[en:User:Bbatsell]]
My bad. I didn't take the word exemption into account when I read that. You're absolutely right. Sorry.
Mgm