Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule/Archive 4

message: My understanding of the relatively new policy WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) -- in particular the banner that appears on applicable biographical pages -- is that 3RR does not apply when removing libellous or poorly sourced statements. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see this referenced in the 3RR policy page here. Just for the sake of completeness -- and to avoid "differences of interpretation", something about BLP being an exception to 3RR should be added ASAP. 23skidoo 01:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:BLP and 3RR

message: Where are the admin guidelines for 3RR? I noticed this bit on this guidline: "Some admins look at the quality of the edits in question; others do not." - seems a bit worrying. Sounds like an excuse for overworked admins not to take care over enforcing 3RR. Do some admins not attempt to mediate before enforcing a 3RR request? Carcharoth 09:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: most. Mediatetion is not an admin task.Geni 12:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a lot to be said for a certain amount of randomness - it helps keep people straying just up to the boundary William M. Connolley 13:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins guidelines for 3RR? 

message: These are: 
* 3RR is enforced between individuals, not against competing sides. This encourages the use of meat puppets and factions, such as Muslims defending other Muslims. See e.g. 
* A single revert will block all additions of the other author made since the version which the article is reverted to, even if they might be worthwile. 
* Deleting is easy, writing valuable content is not. The prevailing 3RR policy equates both.
81.58.29.91 12:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three basic flaws of the 3RR policy 

message: I think we should consider scrapping the 3RR as an independent entity. It should be subsumed completely by a more general, stronger rule: Wikipedia:No Edit Wars. One piece of the No Edit Wars policy could be a tripwire past three reverts, as the current 3RR structure has it; but it would be much clearer that there is no entitlement to three reverts per day -- rather, three is the most you can get away with before being automatically given a day off, but if you're seen to be edit warring, you're going to get at least a few hours' timeout. As Wikipedia:Edit war points out, an edit war can be (and often is) more nebulous than revert revert revert revert; a broader policy, I think, will be helpful in avoiding the sort of misunderstandings represented in the previous section of this talk page. We don't need court-like proceedings, recordings of evidence, and so on, to stop edit wars in their tracks; it's pretty obvious when one is happening, and after the editor has been advised just once (not once for every occurrence, just once) they should be able to tell when they are doing it. Also, 3RR is specific about time periods; it doesn't deal with other real annoying forms of edit warring. A broader rule will empower the community to reduce edit warring further than 3RR already does.
If Wikimedia's permissions system was more refined, the best way to enforce No Edit Wars would be to implement per-page or per-namespace bans. Someone breaking No Edit Wars might draw a 24 hour ban from a specific article, but they could still continue discussing the challenged changes on the talk page (which, of course, is what we want them to be doing.) Then, if they just pick another battlefield, the ban might be broadened to the main namespace.
As with the existing 3RR, the intent of this is not punishment, it is to stop edit wars. Any  single block under this policy can be reversed if the editor, in good faith, promises to stop edit warring; of course, a history of No Edit Wars bans or blocks would likely mitigate against the reversal of such a block.
Thoughts? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In an ideal world with administrators who are unquestionably fairminded I think this would make sense, but administrators are actually human beings.  This would move things to an even less objective definition or disallowed behavior "it's pretty obvious when one is happening".   Is a single revert a "war"?  or is it more of an "edit skirmish"?  Justforasecond 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jpgordon, aren't administrators allowed to block people for reasons other than 3RR already?  I don't see the extension necessary.  However this does not mean scrapping 3RR as an identity - as with normal laws, some always overlap slightly.  If anything, the criticism should be directed towards the enforcement of such a policy - but how can a 3RR policy be administered equally (which in some people's minds translates as 'fairly') when there are so many administrators, and so many different (but not completely dissimilar) situations?  I don't think that just because something is not implemented perfectly one must add more laws (eg requiring more than one admin to approve something) or subtracting laws (making administrators more 'powerful' by giving them a wider range of situations where they can implement bans).  I think the current system is working fairly well, and although I don't necessarily agree with Justforasecond, the general principle of wanting to improve something is not something to be frowned upon.  Jsw663 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But that's already the policy, isn't it?   An admin can look the other should he so choose.   "when it is abundantly clear" is, to use wikilingo, POV.   you say you're being constructive, i say its abundantly clear you aren't, who is right?     Justforasecond 22:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another proposal to eliminate 3RR 

message: I think the 3RR is a very good rule. However I was surprised to read that "the policy specifically does not apply to groups. Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two (or more) competing versions is acceptable." 
Is this a good idea? It means that a group of editors can form a cartel and use the 3RR rule to effectively keep an individual editor from contributing to the article information the cartel doesn't approve of. In fact shouldn't there be a DDRR rule: "Don't delete relevant and referenced information without first discussing your reasoning in the talk page"? Not all reverts are made equal. Dianelos 08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is a good idea, otherwise a single editor can hold community consensus to ransom. Agathoclea 08:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, but on the other hand a group of editors may agree to simply delete any editor's well referenced contribution that is not according to their own personal POV, and in this way exploit 3RR and reduce an article's neutrality. Facts belong to an encyclopedia. Editors should not simply delete a clearly relevant and well-referenced contribution before at least discussing their reasoning in the talk page. Again, I agree with 3RR but I think this rule would work better if some policy were in place that discourages editors from simply deleting well-referenced information.Dianelos 23:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And they do, regularly.  It's definitely a flaw.  Often the single editor represents an unpopular point of view, and editors with numbers on their side play tag-team 3rr-evasion.  And then they have the audacity to report other editors for 3rr.  Two recent examples involving the same tag-team are available at United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and Palestinian exodus, where additions with alternative viewpoints are simply reverted, using bad-faith invocations of Wikipedia policy as the thinnest pretext.  It is system-gaming plain and simple, and it happens everywhere.  222.235.48.232 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not system-gaming.  In fact it's very important.  I'm not saying you're doing this, but let's imagine that, say, someone is trying to rewrite World War II to indicate that there was no Holocaust.  They repeatedly edit to a prefered version of theirs, and everyone else editing the page reverts them.  No discussion is possible between the two groups: the lone user is wrong, and the others are right.  On the other hand, imagine a situation where some barely notable company has 5 editors trying to keep their company's article POV to promote the company, and only one honest WP editor knows about it.  When the honest editor tries to fix the POV they get reverted by the cartel repeatedly.  The difference between the two situations is based on who's right... but that first situation is much more important, critical, and common.  So, no prohibition on "cartels."  In the second situation, the honest editor does have options: they can report the situation at WP:ANI or nominate the article for deletion, or simply put up a request in a wikiproject for backup.  Mangojuicetalk 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah; there are many routes open to single individuals other than reverting if they feel they are facing a 'cartel' with negative aims. --Robdurbar 10:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are cartels allowed?

message: Correct interpretation of the 3RR has arisen as an issue in a Request for comment. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2. David | Talk 11:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR interpretation 

message: I've got two questions on the interpretation and enforcement of the 3RR rule. One is on this clause: "Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy." Does the sockpuppetry need to be proven (via checkuser or a confirmed allegation) for this clause to apply?
: Yes, or at least made reasonably probable, unless you want to risk getting blocked. You also need to make clear that you're invoking the clause William M. Connolley 10:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy says that the limit is per-person William M. Connolley 10:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions 

message: This page says you can't revert the same article more than 3 times in 24 hours, which gave me this question: If you are reverting vandalism and a persistent vandal keeps putting it back, does this rule still count? --AAA! 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an exception for blatant vandalism. Too many people labnel content disputes as vandalism, so be cautious. Blatant vandalism tends to get hit by the RC patrollers anyway William M. Connolley 10:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I have accidently violated the 3RR a couple of times because of Navigation popups.  I use the revert tool but sometimes I make a mistake and realise that I shouldn't have reverted.  Then I revert myself.  This means that I have reverted twice.  I would then want to go back to Recent changes but click the back button.  This reverts a third time and I have violated the rule.  I'm just pointing out that some people may use tools and accidentaly violate the rule.  --lEoN2323 20:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self reverts don't count.  --Lou Crazy 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks about that, I was getting a bit worried.  :-D --lEoN2323 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR and popups 

message: I've been thinking more and more lately that it's a bad idea to explicitly have exceptions for reverting vandalism or removing libelous information.  Of course, I think we should always remove vandalism or libelous information... but the existence of those exceptions causes a lot of trouble with certain users who like to think that because other editors aren't getting along with them, their good-faith edits are vandalism.  And it seems like these exceptions are mainly theoretical -- how often does someone really need to revert vandalism more than 3 times in one day on the same page?  The whole idea of those two exceptions seems to me like telling people not to stuff beans up their noses -- I think those exceptions actually encourage edit warring.  Mangojuicetalk 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if there is vandalism or libelous information repeatedly being added the correct solution is to get the user blocked or the page protected, not to revert endlessly. There is no reason to encourage it. —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed William M. Connolley 08:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exceptions 

message: Based on the brief discussion above, I propose to change the sentence "In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute (e.g. graffiti, link spam), the three-revert rule does not apply." to "Administrators may choose to not count reverts towards the three-revert rule maximum if they feel they are reverts of simple vandalism (e.g. graffiti, link spam) that is clearly not related to a content dispute."  And I propose to reword the libelous contributions section similarly.  Basically, I wouldn't want to do away with the exception entirely: the best thing would be to word it so it's clear that it's the admin's judgement that counts, not the user making the reverts -- at least then when an admin chooses not to disregard, they can point to the rule and use it to back them up.  Mangojuicetalk 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re libel, or vandalism - should there be a bit to say "There is no need to go over 3R to remove libel... if it is libellous, list it at (pagename) so other editors can help" or somesuch William M. Connolley 07:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This should not emphasize "counting" toward 3 reverts in 24 hours. Regardless of the numbers, if someone is edit warring they should be blocked; conversely, if the several "reverts" are productive partial reverts in collaborative editing, they should not be blocked even though it would technically violate the numbers. —Centrx→talk • 00:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've made the changes.  In order to follow those comments, I changed the text at the top of the exceptions section to give the general idea that for a revert to not be subject to the 3RR rule, it has to be non-contentious.  I rewrote with that in mind.  In the case of the libel exception, I had to write to trim it back a fair bit: IMO it's going way too far to allow someone to freely violate the 3RR, just because they think they're doing the right thing by WP:BLP... and it's not the way this rule is used in practice.  Mangojuicetalk 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to Exceptions

message: Another editor and myself have been discussing the possibility of a "lower level" 3RR warning for newer editors, perhaps in the "General Notice" category.  Would like to get input on this.  If others think it's a good idea, and if so, what format the message should take.  The last two revisions of the message we've been reworking are as follows:
Hi! Simply re-instating your changes when they have been reversed (as you are doing in <article>,) can lead you to be blocked from editing (see the three-revert rule).  The best way is to put your suggested changes into the discussion section of the article and then wait for feedback.  When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger.
or
Welcome, thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia.  Please note that repeatedly reverting other people's edits (, as you have done in <article>,) can lead to you being blocked from editing (see the three-revert rule).  Please discuss your changes in the discussion section of the article and gather feedback before proceeding. Thanks.
*Sparkhead 13:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either one of those looks good; not much different from Template:3rr, but a bit of a variation on it.  Perhaps you could put it at Template:3rra?  Mangojuicetalk 12:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "General Notice" 3RR Template 

message: I have come across cases recently where, for some Editors, (a) their "contributions" to a article consist principally of reverts; and (b) if you look at their "contributions" overall they are largely reverts across many articles.  For example one editor made 17 reverts in his last 25 contributions.  Obviously some pruning of articles is necessary, but this strikes me as the wrong balance. I wonder how/whether we can extend the 3RR to deal with this? NBeale 11:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the editor just contacted by NBeale regarding my "serial reverting", I would just like to point out that almost all of my reverts are vandalism related.  I did revert one of NBeale's edits earlier today (over at Richard Dawkins), but noted why in my edit summary (inappropriate placing of material) and copied his material to the article's talk page (where I also commented on it).  Anyway, just for the record ...  --Plumbago 12:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I specifically don't want to personalise this. Obviously dealing with clear cases of vandalism don't count as reverts for this purpose. But suppose a hypotheical editor were to make large numbers of non-valdalism-related reverts and contribute little or nothing? NBeale 14:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, please.  A "hypothetical editor", just after you'd personalised it by pointing out and enumerating my reverts on my talk page?  Suggesting that editors consume time speculating on such hypotheticals is not a good use of time.  Yours or ours.  --Plumbago 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: NBeale, what you don't say is that in certain articles we have a single editor being consistently reverted by no less than seven other editors.  That single editor happens to be you.  Consistent adding of non-encyclopedic material will result in consistent reversion.  We do have guidelines for discussion questionable material on the talk page before adding to the project page. *Spark* 12:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do a lot of reverting, as well, but it's always vandalism, or things that I can't tell if they are correct.  Also, I never break the three-revert rule.  If it gets to that point, I usually concede (unless it's vandalism, in which case I let the vandal break the rule first.)  --Luigifan 12:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A user who perpetually violates the 3RR can be blocked for longer and longer periods.  But I see absolutely nothing wrong with a "serial reverter" -- that's what a LOT of editors do; they keep tabs on certain articles that are prone to questionable edits and revert those edits when there's nothing to discuss about them. Mangojuicetalk 12:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serial reverters 

message: The three revert rule is rubbish.
It needs to die, and fast, before it damages Wikipedia any more. I propose a much better system to deal with excessive reverting and/or edit wars:
# Any editor finding an edit war or excessive reverting goes to a noticeboard and adds a link to the article(s) and editor(s) involved.
# The enforcing admin leaves a notice on the talk page of an editor they think is excessively reverting or edit warring, telling them to stop editing the page and discuss.
# If the editor goes to the talk page, then normal dispute resolution procedure is followed.
# If the editor continues warring, they are blocked.
This gets round the fact that the "three revert rule" is entirely wrongly named (it's not a rule, it's not triggered either by three reverts or by more than three, it classes many things that are reverting as not included, and it includes many things that are not reverting). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you mean a policy such as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. --Bobblehead 23:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No such policy; that's a guideline. Make it policy and scrap the 3RR and I'll be ecstatic. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is such a big difference between guidelines and policies. :) DE does exactly what you suggest, just with less steps once the disruptive editor is submitted to AN/I. --Bobblehead 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately there is a big difference between guidelines and policies. I think WP:AN/I would swiftly be overwhelmed if it had to absorb routine cases of disruptive editing, which is why I suggested a separate noticeboard (rather as WP:AN/3RR is now separate). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, this isn't a bad policy! The Wiklpedia 3RR is important on many reasons! Most important, it solve about 80% of edit-wars (two that won't agree on a piece of information). Other than that, constant vandalism of reverting to a page of a ridiculous time or to a vandalized version of the page can be also solved using this rule. Although I do agree some slack should apply to it (reverting obvious inaccurate information), this is not a bad rule. Don't hate! Anom8trw8 03:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fys -- that's exactly why the 3RR is a good policy -- yes, edit wars are harmful, and tendentious editing, crankery, trolling, et cetera, are major problems... but it's very hard to judge them, because often both sides have points, both sides may have an agenda... and in the worst of those cases, we end up with an arbitration case.  Things don't have to get that far in all cases, and the way that kind of thing can be avoided is if people are forced to discuss what they want rather than simply ignore each other.  The 3RR puts one simple barrier in the way of editors blindly ignoring each other, and probably heads off a lot of nasty situations.  I don't think anyone is arguing that edit warring generally shouldn't be viewed as disruptive, but things get fuzzy quickly.  Mangojuicetalk 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Fys, it is the best solution in an imperfect universe. Are you aware of how things looked before it was introduced? Do you think the inertia of wikiconsensus would have implemented anything like this as policy unless it was badly needed? There is no way to go back to pre-3RR times. If you have a suggestion of how to improve it, you are welcome to voice it, but if you think the 3RR is 'rubbish' I seriously doubt you have understood much about it, or the nature of edit wars. In obvious cases of disruption, we don't even need to invoke 3RR. Show me disruptive behaviour on any article I am not involved with, and I will block the offender without much ado (in borderline cases posting to AN/I for review). 3RR is a definition of behaviour well within 'disruptive' that can be identified algorithmically as it were. 'disruptive' behaviour (such as gaming-the-system) can be much more varied of course, but needs human common sense to be recognized and thus cannot be cast into a rigid if-then policy. You also seem to have misconceptions about what "Wikipedia isn't": being "just" or "equal-handed" in our blocks is no priority, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy (and -bureaucracy). The focus of blocks is to keep the editing process on track and palatable to hard-working, policy-abiding editors. If some disruptors occasionally get treated more rougly than other disroptors, that is of no consequence and doesn't need to be fixed at all. dab (ᛏ) 11:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: that said, if you have been blocked prematurely by some newbie admin (as seems to be the case), your course of action is not to rant against the 3RR itself, but about trigger-happy, power-crazed IRCite admins. I don't know if you have a case there, but even if you do, this has nothing to do with the 3RR as such. I am not watching AN/I 24/24, but if I do spot a complaint about an abusive block, and agree with it, I will be sure to unblock. But users wont to cry "wolf", who people, wasting ten minutes to investigate their case, find were being disruptive after all, will have a slimmer chance of getting their blocks reviewed. If your block was completely unjust or mistaken, I am sure it will be reverted by almost any admin. But again this has nothing to do with the 3RR, just with unjustified blocks that may (rarely) be meted out invoking it. dab (ᛏ) 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested, is there actually a rule which says imbalanced blocking is not a concern?  I'd think it's one thing to say the main purpose is to protect WP, and I'd agree, but shouldn't an important part of that be treating people fairly?  Perhaps our definitions of fairness differ, but I'd think if two people are doing the same thing under the same circumstances, we'd want to make at least some effort to treat them the same. Mackan79 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The worst policy on Wikipedia, official. 

message: Proposed addition below WP:LIVING:  Copyright violations expose the Wikimedia Foundation to possible legal action and should be removed on sight. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Approve. Mangojuicetalk 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Approve.  This is really a no brainer--surely the possibility of legal liability trumps 3RR.  I'm going to add it to the article, seeing no opposition here. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: Why doesn't the policy:
* mention the 3RR template (Template:3RR)
* and/or provide suggested wording for a warning
* or mention that many administrators won't block a user for a 3RR violation without a warning being posted on the user's talk page?
I understand that a warning is NOT mandatory, and some users even feel that it is counterproductive, but some users (like me) come to this page at least expecting to find a link to the template (and appreciating sample wording), and find - zip? -- John Broughton  |  Talk 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR warning

message: I think an explicit exception should be added for cases where you're reverting bots adding interwiki links, as they frequently add inappropriate links over and over again. Theoretically, if you can chase down the corresponding articles in every single foreign language wiki and make everything consistent, you should be able to stop the bots, but in practice this is almost impossible. Arguably this case is already covered by the exception about "reverting without edit warring" (an edit war with a bot is pretty much a nonsense concept) but I think it should be made explicit.
(For the example that brought this up, see vitamin A.) --Trovatore 02:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, actually see retinol. The bots have been adding links to retinol from foreign-language articles titled "vitamin A" or cognates; I think these should go to vitamin A and not to retinol. --Trovatore 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: add exception for reverting bots

message: So, I couldn't find anything about this, so I thought I'd ask: If a user constantly removes speedy deletion tag from an article he or she has created (which is against policy, I believe), does reverting these removals count toward the 3RR? Until recently, the drmspeedy2 template implied that removing speedys was considered vandalism, in which case it would necessarily be acceptable to revert more than three times. But this doesn't seem to be shown anymore. Heimstern Läufer 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not much point to reverting in this case. An editor who does this is not likely to get blocked, but the more efficient solution is to contact an administrator directly or report on the administrator's noticeboard (or perhaps even convincing the person removing the tag to stop). Continually reverting is just a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 06:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about removing speedy tags? 

message: Please advise how to avoid escalating this but still solve it.  The page Randolph High School (New Jersey) has a humourous, but completely spurious, non-encyclopaedic, joke section of current students.  I removed it, added comment as to why, and explained further on the discussion page.  Someone had put a lot of effort into it, so I tried  to be kind, but it is just a joke, not an article.  I also added template warnings to the relevant user pages, and a request for protection for the page as a whole.
Now User:Joefuf has replaced the text twice.  I've added to comment to their talk page asking them to either stop, or explain their thinking.  We are on the edge of an edit war, and also about to go into violation of the 3R rule.
I think I've been patient and tried to be nice about this.  Now I'm just pissed off.  Any suggestions please?  thanks in advance.  raining girl 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about 3RR, it doesn't apply to obvious vandalism. I've reverted and made it clear that this is a path they don't want to go down. yandman 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this is a case where we have to try and "solve" things. Unfortunately, I think they know very well what they're doing. yandman 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HELP PLEASE, first encounter with 3R rule, school vandals amok

message: Okay, I know edit warring is bad, and I know that edit warring gets people blocked. But unless I'm just having a bad seeing day, I can't actually find a policy which explicitly states that edit warring in and of itself, independent of 3RR violations, is against the rules. The best I can find is this:
:Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.
on this page. WP:TE is a guideline and WP:EDIT WAR is an essay. So what is the official status of edit warring? - Che Nuevara 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's what I meant. - Che Nuevara 05:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit warring ... not against the rules? 

message: Any reverts beyond this should be performed by other users?  WP:BEANS, anyone?  The intent is: stop edit warring.  Period.  Tag-teaming is not within the spirit of that, surely? Guy (Help!) 21:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree whole-heartedly. - Che Nuevara 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, WP:BEANS totally applies there.  Let's not encourage reverters to seek meatpuppets.  Mangojuicetalk 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: While we all agree that edit warring is a Bad Thing, it appears that making a strict numerical definition for it does not actually help in stopping edit wars, and has several undesirable side effects. In particular, despite the wording on this page, people tend to think that three reverts is an entitlement, or that they should simply ask one of their friends for the fourth. People often game the system by claiming a block before the third revert-per-day is out of order, and even some admins agree with that view and undo the block or censure the blocker. The more basic problem is that the 3RR is not constructive in that it tends to point admins towards blocking people, rather than protecting the page and starting up a discussion. Finally, people spend quite some time in filing the overly-complex reports on WP:AN3 (which tend to be filed by the other party in the revert war) and expect swift and semi-punitive responses to the reports. It may be time to deprecate the 3RR in favor of a more general and less legalistic rule about edit warring. Comments please? >Radiant< 14:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Revert warring does more damage to the encyclopedia than almost anything else - with the obvious exception of wheel warring - and blocks for 3RR could and should be directly enforceable. If anything a stricter wording is needed to make it clear that activities like meatpuppeting on 3RR are also unacceptable and should be IMO block-worthy offenses. Moreschi  Deletion! 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I tend to believe that the 3RR system is most effective and keeps edit wars a lot less troublesome. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also feel that 3RR performs its function well. If we adopt a non-legalistic approach to edit warring, there will be endless complaints and bad blood that Mr. Connolley or some other blocking admin chose to block a friend of his opponents for two reverts and decided to skip a friend of his with four reverts. The current system pivots on equality and functions well enough for me. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ghirla - in order for our revert rules to work, there needs to be some specific number of reverts that trigger it, and three seems to be the right number. If we give people discretion or flexibility, we'll get lengthier revert wars plus accusations of unfairness against every admin who enforces the rules. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Alas, the converse is also true: one reasonable voice is powerless in the face of two or three POV-pushers. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, that sort of thing. – SAJordan talkcontribs 19:27, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But speed limits *don't* work. I never drove as safely as I did on the german autobahn, simply because I could keep my eyes on the road, and only had to worry about other traffic. :-) Like speed limits in real life, you're only really fighting the symptom (badly designed roads/lack of good faith (Assume Good Faith)), rather than the actual problem :-). Granted, if that's all you can do, it's better than nothing, but still. Kim Bruning 00:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Radiant has a point in reports. They are extremely complex. I think I have filled one or two only in my active year here. The report should be easier to fulfill. But I am not waiting for the third revert to block. I usually wait for a fourth or fifth, just to be sure the user received the warnings (in fact, I think I have yet to block someone due 3RR). Articles like Natalie Merchant, Holly Marie Combs, MechAssault: Phantom War, List of best-selling computer and video games and many others are subject to edit wars very often, and if I hadn't reported them, it is because the reports were too hard to fill. As a final comment, the rule could be 5RR or 10RR, but the larger the number, the more damaging for the article. -- ReyBrujo 01:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with most(?) people that gave their opinion - the 3RR is helpful, and useful - and it keeps people from warring. Those that feel the need to revert a 4th time are those that don't have the personability to discuss changes on the talk page first - or the support to win a short revert war of very few reverts. Without the 3RR, wars could go on between two people until an admin protects the page - but with the 3RR, large wars can only happen if users organize against eachother - something that doesn't usually happen, and if it does, it stops quickly and discussion starts. Fresheneesz 09:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR Considered Harmful 

message: I think that reverts to an articles talk page count separately to reverting the main article. Ie, you can have 3R to both in 24h and not be up for a block (if we're sticking strictly to the numbers). It doesn't come up often, mind you. Does anyone disagree? William M. Connolley 18:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page reverts add in? 

message: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Two-revert_rule --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 13:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal was rejected. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 11:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two revert-rule

message: Does the 3RR rule trump other policies/guidelines?
I'm currently working on a page where one user is massively POV pushing (some of which was aimed at discrediting the work of a living person and was thus verging on breaking wikibio rules), and another is adding substantial amounts of WP:OR. Both are very persistent.
A third user reverted or trimmed their edits several times based on normal wiki procedures for WP:OR/WP:V/WP:NPOV and misc bio, and is now being threatened with the 3RR.
Who would you say was on the most solid ground in this case?
perfectblue 09:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem (if you like) is that 3RR is fairly definite; but deciding if something is OR or POV is rather harder to determine. The remedy for people breaking 3RR is to report them at WP:AN3; the remedy for POV pushing is recruiting more editors on your side, or an RFC. To be specific, please don't break 3R to remove OR William M. Connolley 10:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always better not to break 3R --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 11:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are clear exceptions to 3RR - vandalism and negative unsourced info about living persons (WP:BLP) being the primary two.  These are exceptions because, among other things, they are easy to judge.  POV pushing and original research are, to a much larger extent, are in the eyes of the beholder.  In fact, admins don't ask editors to provide a basis for their potentially excess edits, which is why it's a good idea to cite vandalism and WP:BLP in reverts.  John Broughton  |  Talk 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main "other thing", with regard to living persons, is that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want to get sued. That's also presumably why copyvio is also listed as an exception -- you seem to have omitted to mention that one. --Trovatore 21:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR in relation to other policies 

message: It is among Wikipedia's core principles that anyone can edit. However, it is not a core principle that anyone can edit war. In practice, it is widely understood that anon IPs and obvious sockpuppets are used to prosecute edit wars by known editors seeking - usually successfully - to evade 3RR. The frequent success of this enterprise is its primary attractions. This can be judicially neutralized by exempting reverts of anon and obvious sockpuppet reverts from 3RR. To err on the conservative side, new anon edits would not be exempt, only reverts. Anons (and named accounts) which only revert are in nearly all cases sockpuppets of active (or banned) users. It is appropriate that policy acknowledge this reality. When established editors revert the reverts of anons and probable sockpuppets, they do a service to the encylopedia.Proabivouac 09:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anons and obvious sockpuppets

message: There was somthing about this in the article, but I didn't understand what exactly the rule was in this instance. If a user breaks the three revert rule by reverting one article, oh, let's say seven times and the 3rr noticeboard is backlogged and he just keeps doing it, and the other two of us have both restored it three times each, is it a violation to restore it a fourth time if the guy just keeps reverting for no good reason? Thanatosimii 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can only revert them once they have been blocked for violating 3RR. Prior to that it may be considered part of the ongoing edit war. --Bobblehead 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Dankechen. Thanatosimii 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even then you may wish to be careful about it. There isn't anything preventing someone else from submitting a 3RR against you and from an admin determining you're part of an edit war and blocking you for that. Ideally once someone violates 3RR it is best to leave their last revert, report them, and then once the person is blocked have someone that hasn't reverted that day revert their last edit.  Unless it's a copyright violation, vandalism, or violation of WP:BLP, there really isn't any harm in leaving the disputed content on the article for a few hours. --Bobblehead 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rr rule in relation to reverting 3rr breakers 

message: I'm reverting removals of an entry from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 25. Common sense tells me that the 3RR will not apply even if I make four reverts, but I'd hate to be blocked based on an uncommon view of common sense. Is this correct? --NE2 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make 4R. If you're obviously right, someone else will William M. Connolley 09:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, another editor will, in all probability, help you out if you are indeed right.  Be very clear what you're doing in your edit summary - that helps others figure out that you're doing the right thing (or not, if not).  Also, if it's any consolation, if you're fighting just one editor, and he/she removes stuff for a fourth time, that's a 24 hour block (assuming a warning, of course). -- John Broughton  |  (♫♫) 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the 3RR apply here?

message: Could we have a 3 revert rule exception for "soft protection", where you use reverts to simulate protection of part of a page, without having to protect the whole page? --Kim Bruning 07:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be too confusing.  Why not just protect the page in such a circumstance?  Mangojuicetalk 10:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because sometimes doing that on high-traffic pages is more disruptive than the edit war was to start with. :-) --Kim Bruning 12:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is an interesting concept and worth discussing.  However, I really think the proper place to discuss this would be Wikipedia talk:Protection policy.  You're proposing a new kind of page protection here.  If adopted, the 3RR would have to be modified, but it seems like a very bad idea to modify the 3RR if this kind of protection isn't generally an approved concept.  Mangojuicetalk 15:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not so new. IIRC it was one of the original uses people thought of for why to have reversion. --Kim Bruning 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you give me an example of a page that has had this kind of partial protection imposed on it?  Or for which it has been discussed?  To me, technologically, it makes much more sense to simply protect the whole page -- a user encountering that kind of protection will give up: there's nothing they can do.  But a "simulated" protection would seem to be just another person reverting them, and they may give up because of the persistence, but they may continue to try to change the article, since they're still able to edit it.  Mangojuicetalk 19:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft protection 

message: I would like policy clarification on the appropriateness of 3RR being applied to userpages, and if it is applicable, under what circumstances. - WeniWidiWiki 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, a user should not be punished for violating the 3RR in their own user space... but there are exceptions.  For instance, if a user violated the 3RR in continuing to use a fair-use image on their user page, I would block.  Basically, a user's own user space is pretty much their space, but that doesn't mean they can do just anything with it.  Mangojuicetalk 10:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be most unlikely, as administrator, to block someone for making a fourth revert in his own userspace, and would, in fact, be more tempted to block the people who were reverting him. Why, oh why do people have to start replacing messages that a user has seen and doesn't want to keep on his userpage? Why do people have to annoy and harass a mildly troublesome user who isn't vandalizing or disrupting anything? If someone is readding fair use content or egregious personal attacks to his user space,  I'll block for copyright violation or for disruption, but not for 3RR. That said, I wouldn't like to see "one's own user space" added to the list of official exceptions. I get a bit concerned when I see people reverting their own userpages and claiming that 3RR "doesn't apply". I would say simply that it "is generally not enforced" in cases of one's own userspace. Musical Linguist 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be listed as an exception, but it was somewhat hedged with terms like "generally speaking" and so on.  Mangojuicetalk 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you recall where the discussion took place and where consensus was reached to remove this exception? I am specifically concerned about users removing polemics, essays, rants, etc. about wikipedia policy from other user's namespace because they find it  personally offensive, even though it is not targeting one specifically and is abstract. This happened to me recently when a user removed a rant I had against wikipedia policy on IP editors on my userpage and then another user submitted material for deletion under the same premise here. - WeniWidiWiki 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed in the recent large change that streamlined and simplified the policy page.  This exception specifically was not discussed. Mangojuicetalk 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy clarification 

message: I've been looking at some templates to warn users about vandalism, etc., and I came across .  It says, "Under normal circumstances a user is entitled to three reverts per 24 hour period on a specific page." However, the policy page says, "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors who engage in edit warring may still be blocked from editing even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period."
My instinct tells me I'd be safer to be guided by the policy page than by the warning template, especially since I looked at the histories and found that the policy page has existed since August 2004, and the template since 2 February this year! Could someone give some clarification, please? And if the template is misleading, could it be altered? Thanks. ElinorD 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template has now been modified by Kim Bruning. ElinorD 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should probably be deleted even, but perhaps we can keep it around for a while to discover who we should block? O:-)  --Kim Bruning 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible contradiction between this policy page and a warning template 

message: I think there needs to be a section on what editors should do when a reported 3RR violation is not acted on by administrators. My idea is that the "reporter" should get a get out of jail card if reversion continues on the disputed page. Thoughts? Catchpole 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a game. Sometimes there is good reason why a 3RR report isn't acted on. - WeniWidiWiki 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in that case some communication would be appreciated. Catchpole 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In most cases, a 3RR report that doesn't lead to a block will still get attention.  If a report gets old, you can always mention it at WP:ANI to try to get someone's attention.  However, you should not violate the 3RR yourself; that's the whole point of the 3RR.  Just let the other person have their way for the time being.  Heck, even if they get blocked, you shouldn't break the 3RR by reverting them back, it's just that no one would be likely to report you, since the other party is blocked.  Others violating the 3RR should not be an excuse for you to do so under any circumstances.  Mangojuicetalk 14:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What happens when your report is ignored?