Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule/Archive 3

message: Not sure if this is the location to note this problem, but here goes: there is 1+ person who repeatedly deletes content on the Manitoba (disambiguation) page. The deletions always relate to Manitoba as the former stage name of musician Dan Snaith. Since 2004, Snaith uses the name "Caribou". I came to the disambiguation page to find the new (Caribou) name for Manitoba. I added this content and it was deleted a few hours later. Another user informs me that this has happened repeatedly on this page. Can someone assist? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manitoba (disambiguation) 

message: I do not like this section.  It gives admins blanket power to block anyone they want.  All they have to do is arbitrarily call something "edit warring" and block users they dislike/disagree with.  anyone have plausible checks to this?  Otherwise it must be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MateoP (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice it is a restating of the dissruption clause. The check is other admins.Geni 02:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.

message: I propose that 3RR be scrapped entirely. The problem which we have is edit warring, which is something which all users engaged in it are equally responsible for. At the moment an edit war can be deliberately precipitated by a user, knowing that they will be able to revert 3 times back to their own version, or get other users to do it, causing the person who opposes their view to be blocked. Alternatively a user can for example in a separate session, knowing that a user has made 3 reverts earlier in the day which they have perhaps forgotten then make a deliberately provocative edit bordering on vandalism, knowing the person is working on the article at the time, in the hope the user may trick the other user into reverting to cause the user to be blocked. To avoid 3RR being used vindictively in this manner, I propose that revert war templates be created that can be posted on the talk pages of all users involved and the article in question which will encourage users to discuss the matter on the talk page before editing the article, the disputed material will then be removed or kept by the "edit war" admin depending on how long the information had stood in the article, i.e. if it stood in the article for more than a month, it should be included, if less, removed. Reverting of the "edit war" admin then becomes a blockable offense. Discussion should then take place on the talk page, possibly with the "revert war" admin mediating. If that does not succeed, it should go to one of the other mediation channels.  Arniep 23:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have the rescourses and in any case that kind of disspute resultion isn't realy an admin task. The 3RR can be though of as an antibiiic that kills of a certian very pointless form of edit waring. Our more skilled edit warriours have of course adapted to deal with it over time.Geni 23:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the status quo isn't acceptable as it is often people who are acting in bad faith who are the ones to report 3RR after having precipitated the dispute, and as they made the first edit on that day, they are "in the clear". Maybe we should have a different rule in that if an edit results in an edit war, the article must be returned to it's established version while the dispute is being resolved either through discussion or mediation. This would stop the silly number games of counting whether this or that edit counts as revert or not and would stop the 3RR being used as a "trap" to catch people out by bad faith users. Arniep 01:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The three revert rule is prehistoric. Originaly it was not infoceable by block. Before then it was ignored from time to time the results were not pretty and would be far worse today. Ultimately the three revert rule works as a block on blunt force reverting which is needed.Geni 01:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically you are saying it's fine that the 3RR rule is used aggressively? Arniep 07:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not reasonable to suppose that an editor may "trap" another editor into a 3RR violation.Timothy Usher 08:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is reasonable as it happens all the time. A user knows that if they make an aggressive controversial edit which they know another editor with whom they have been in dispute will object, they will succeed in restoring their version without breaking the 3RR "rule", whilst if the other user tries to restore the article to before the controversial edit was made they will be blocked. At the moment this policy favours aggressive editing and using 3RR as a group bullying tactic. Arniep 12:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not trapping anyone into a violation, as they're always free to let the changes stand (just as they were before they learned about Wikipedia), but it certainly would gain an advantage in a content dispute. That happens all the time.  This would seem a minor fix compared to, say, a request for page protection.  Of course, in the latter instance we can say we've "stopped an edit war", but only vacuously so.  If 3RR is too often the final arbitrer of content, it's because one can't currently force editors to join the talk page, or to be reasonable once they're there.  It only takes one such user to make compromise impossible.  Conversely, many pages have been violating policy for so long that if another editor comes along and tells them to use reliable sources (to name just one policy that's generally unenforced, say as opposed to WP:3RR or WP:NPA), he'll be told to take a hike.  In both cases, the way it's likely going to be settled is by 3RR.  Whether we'd describe this as a "group bullying tactic" I think would likely depend on our view of the content dispute.  The problem would seem to lie not in any deficiency in WP:3RR, but in the lack of enforcement of content policies and the non-existence of common-sense user conduct policies sufficient to guarantee that problem editors will be bumping up against something other than 3RR.Timothy Usher 18:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But don't you see what I am saying- as it stands at the moment, the 3RR encourages bad faith users to make aggressive edits WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE MAKING THE EDIT. I propose that the we count the original controversial edit as a revert, so if the other user feels strong enough the article will be returned to its original state before the controversial edit, and then the users will have to discuss on the talk page. Arniep 22:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to scrap 3RR

message: It has been claimed or implied a few times at this page and elsewhere that William M. Connolley "changed" the policy on 18 April by adding:
:There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count.
In no way was that a change to policy. It was a clarification.  I was already aware that different reverts counted, and had been, for as long as I can remember. That was what was in practice, and the wording of the policy page prior to that did not say that the reverts had to be related; it was at least possible to guess that you could be, but extra clarity was needed. If the policy says you mustn't revert more than three times, and it doesn't say "you musn't carry out the same revert more than three times, and admins are blocking for unrelated reverts, and then someone makes the policy page clearer by specifying that the reverts don't have to be the same, and there's no protest, then it shouldn't be called a change in policy. I explained that particular aspect of 3RR on numerous occasions before 18 April, (, , , ,
) and I can recall people being blocked for different reverts long before 18 April. William's edit was helpful in ensuring that people would not misunderstand the policy; it was not a change to policy. AnnH ♫ 07:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I was already aware that different reverts counted, and had been, for as long as I can remember. That was what was in practice"  how are mere ordinary users (even admins!) who are not in the right circles meant to know what some admins always knew in their own head? I fell foul of this myself, I read the policy some time ago, and I regularly watch the pump and relevant pages for new policy information, yet it was never clear that 3 reverts on anything at all counted towards the 3RR " rule". Arniep 07:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that before William made it more explicit, it was perhaps not quite as clear as it should have been. However, I read it a year ago, and have read it many times since then, and I have always known that reverts to different sections counted. And I knew that simply from reading the policy page, not from some secret info that only the elite have access to.  I also knew from the 3RR noticeboard that that was the practice.  William's addition did not contractict an old rule; it did not change an old rule. It just meant that people would have even less excuse than they had had before to claim that they didn't know. AnnH ♫ 09:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Errrm... so is all this talk just cos you're annoyed about being blocked? William M. Connolley 08:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't try and deflect criticism by attacking another user, you were the user that added the text without making any announcement so that other users could see a change to the policy (yes, a change as users shouldn't be expected to read the minds of admins). Thanks Arniep 11:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could that possibly be a change unless the rule before that said that no editor may perform the same revert more than three times in a 24-hour period, or no editor may revert the same section more than three times in a 24-hour period? It didn't say anything like that, so there was no change in policy. If there had been, his change would certainly have been reverted, as many, many admins watch this page, and would certainly oppose an attempt to change policy without discussion. It's unfortunate that his excellent clarification is being used to imply that the rule was changed. Let me state this clearly:  when people were blocked for making four unrelated reverts to the same article before William's so-called "change", as indeed frequently happened, there was nothing in the policy page that they could have appealed to. AnnH ♫ 09:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, AnnH, but the history of practice is not as easily verifiable than the history of the policy page: my report was explicitly based upon the latter.  To the extent that the policy page didn't reflect prevailing understanding and practice, my report is thus by nature deficient.Timothy Usher 08:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I wrote my post in this section, Timothy, I didn't have your report in mind. I was thinking of Bearcat's claims here that the rule was changed two months ago. I noticed William's change at the time, and I thought, "that's a good idea to make it clearer;" I didn't think, "that's good to bring in that rule." In fact, the three clarifications that William has made in the last few months (replacing or removing POV tags is not exempt from 3RR, reverts to different sections count, and consecutive reverts with no intervening edits count as one) have all, in my view, been excellent additions to the page, reflecting actual practice, as understood for over a year by administrators who help out at the 3RR noticeboard. People who intend to revert a lot, and admins who intend to step in and unblock really do need to ensure that they're familiar with the policy. AnnH ♫ 17:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but it doesn't matter what some admins thought the rule should be or always was, if admins don't write it down on this policy page it is not reasonable to expect ordinary Wikipedians to know "what it really was". Arniep 17:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, in this case, the user is a longstanding editor and admin, who had the rule explained to him again just days before he was blocked; thus there is no excuse here.  Moreover, inexperienced editors are always warned before being blocked; it is only experienced editors who are not afforded such niceties.  In addition, it always was written down on the page; the fact that it has since been made even more explicit does not contradict the fact that it has always been there. Finally, it is a complete abdication of personal responsibility to state that someone can be "goaded" into 3RR, not to mention a rather conspiratorial view of Wikipedia that violates WP:AGF, another fundamental Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly I was referring to my case, when I was reported for violating 3RR twice, and only the second time was it actually explained to me that any 4 reverts counted and this was never obvious until William Connelly wrote on this policy page in April whereas I had read the policy some time earlier. The very fact that William had to state it in in bold must have meant that it was also not obvious to many other users, (even admins!). Re:AGF, I don't see why good faith should be assumed for a user on probation on the very articles in question, and which he has tripped two users into 3RR, and then run off straight away to report them like a little child. Arniep 22:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you added "like a little child", that really helped the tone here.  Once again, no one can "trap" or "trip" others users into violating 3RR.  Let's try to steer the discussion away from this particular dispute.Timothy Usher 22:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sorry but the fact Zeq is on arbitration committee probation doesn't exactly give an indication that they have a very good record of adhering to policy does it. I see very little "assuming of good faith" by admins in other cases where users have been as troublesome as Zeq. Arniep 23:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  William's "change" 

message: OK, so rather than add this directly I'll discuss first. Subject: does a block "clear" all previous violations? Example: user X reverts 4 times; is blocked (for less than 24h); returns and rv's again, such that this gives a new set of 4R in 24h, though 3 of them are previous to the block. Is this blockable? I would say yes. Opinions? Is it worth adding (one way or other) to the page? William M. Connolley 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it should be added to the page in the as unambiguous manner as possible. The mere fact that this question has been raised on talk shows that there may be some ambiguity on this issue. Pecher Talk 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say it does violate 3rr. I have no sense that a block resets some counter of allowed reverts. As I've said before, I'd like to move away from that knid of legalistic thinking. I worry about instruction creep exacerbating what I see as 'revert-counting' to game the system. Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say definitely yes. Yes to "Is this blockable?", that is, not to "Does a block 'clear' all previous violations?" And where it says that you can be blocked even if you technically stay within four reverts, I would say that the scenario that you've presented is a clear case where such a block would be appropriate. So if someone is blocked for the full 24 hours for making four reverts, comes back and immediately reverts that page again, I think s/he shouldn't be surprised at being blocked a second time. I'm sure I've seen it happen — perhaps with Chooserr and the BC/BCE dating system, though I may be mistaken. AnnH ♫ 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another bit: does a block "clear" all previous violations? 

message: I have made a clarification on the policy page .
It doesn't change policy at all, it just makes one aspect of it clearer.  This came after User:KimvdLinde explained to me how the policy as it stands could be used to block me.
Consider the following situation:
*User:Bad removes the date of birth from a biographical article without explanation.
*User:Good restores the DoB (his 1st revert) with the summary rv unexplained deletion (possible vandalism)
*User:Bad removes the DoB (his 1st revert) with the summary removing unsourced assertion
*User:Good restores the DoB (his 2nd revert) with a summary explaining that the DoB is uncontroversial, etc.
*User:Bad removes the DoB (his 2nd revert) with the summary removing controversial unsourced assertion
*User:Good restores the DoB and includes a note of what the source of information is.
*User:Bad removes the DoB and source (his 3rd revert) with the summary removing badly sourced DoB
*User:Good restores the DoB and includes even fuller references regarding the source of the information.
*User:Bad removes the DoB and full source info (his 4th revert).
*User:Good reports User:Bad for 3RR, secure in the knowledge that he himself has reverted only twice, whilst the other guy have reverted four times.
*Both users are blocked under the 3RR and declared to be as bad as each other.
The policy stated that "‘Complex partial reverts’ refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time; this is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR."
The above wording allows the blocking of User:Good in the above situation.  However, User:Good could be forgiven for believing that complex reverts only meant reverts that include token extra alterations in order to disguise the revert.  (The above paragraph certainly has the intention of insinuating that the purpose of adding new material to an edit is to disguise the revert.)  This might confuse good-faith editors into thinking that if new material is added in an effort to reach a compromise or acquiesce to other users' demands, then there is no 3RR violation.  That was certainly my belief, and would bet that most editors would assume the same.
In order to make it crystal-clear that good faith is no defence, I have edited the policy page to read as follows: "‘Complex partial reverts’ refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time; this is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. Note that this type of edit counts toward 3RR whether carried out in bad faith or good, i.e. whether it is done to disguise the reverting or in the spirit of compromise."
This is because I believe that people should be made fully aware that they will be immediately blocked if they act like User:Good in the above situation.  — Gulliver ✉ 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the change and am going to try adding a similar example to the page itself. I have seen this aspect of the policy interpreted very differently by or in reference to different users and that shouldn't be the case since 3RR is one of the few things on Wikipedia that doesn't involve subjective evaluation. --CBD 10:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex reverts 

message: Several discussions have taken place about the future of the 3RR since my first "3RR confusion" post a few weeks ago.  If there is any conclusion to be drawn from these discussions, it's that there is no concensus as to the future of the 3RR.
While most contributors agree that the 3RR is a useful policy for cracking down on vandalism and tendentious editing, there is no similar consensus on the specific rules that govern the policy.  Many believe that it has become applied too rigidly, and often punishes well-intentioned editors on technical grounds.  Others believe that the current regulations are appropriate, and that any significant changes would be detrimental to Wikipedia's integrity.  I suspect that it would be nearly impossible to reach consensus on these matters. 
For that reason, I'm going to try a different approach.  My proposal is to leave the regulations as they are, but to change the punishment meted out to offenders.  This is not necessarily a radical departure from the current approach.  The 3RR does not require that offending users be blocked; it simply grants administrators the power to carry out such blocks.  My recommendation is that such blocks be used very sparingly.
Specifically, I propose:
(i)  That administrators be required to examine the nature of specific disputes.  If the 3RR violation is simply a spelling/grammar fix or something similar, then the offender should not be blocked.  Instead, s/he should be encouraged to find someone else to fix the page should the problem recur in the future.  (In extreme situations, the offender should be permitted to claim justification for his/her changes.)
(ii)  That offenders be given a chance to correct themselves prior to a block occurring.  That is, editors who violate the 3RR should be given the opportunity to self-revert their changes in order to avoid being blocked.
(iii)  That blocks be reserved for chronic offenders, or for contributors who refuse the opportunity to self-revert.
What say others?  CJCurrie 03:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CJ, the whole point of the policy is to stop admins from judging quality of edits, and to stop editors from thinking that, just because they prefer their edits, they have the right to revert war endlessly to retain them. Your changes would overturn the whole ethos of that, and there is no consensus to do that, as the recent thread on the mailing list made clear. People can be blocked at the moment even before they get to 3RR, if an admin is so inclined. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I disagree with that rule as well.  Returning to the present dispute, I'm not suggesting that admins involve themselves in content wars, but they should be allowed to determine if the change is essentially content-neutral (eg. a spelling or grammar correction, or something similar).  CJCurrie 03:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Without judging the quality, the loophole above exists, and will continue to be exploited. Supplicant 04:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Complementary or consensual edits should not count toward the 3RR.  CJCurrie 04:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins aren't mind readers, how are they going to know what two other editors do and do not agree on?  In many cases they both might be unsure. Publicola 04:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins may not be mind readers, but surely they can ask if two editors were working co-operatively on a page.  CJCurrie 05:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if more than two people are involved in the recent edit history, then the admin (or the 3RR complainer) would have to get another recent editor, to "second" their motion for a block.  That seems fair -- get at least two people to have to sign on to a 3RR request, unless there were only two people edit warring.  That would have saved me from my 3RR block, I suspect.  Publicola 07:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. These constant attempts to introduce loopholes only increase the likelihood of edit-warring; 3RR is intended to decrease that likelihood. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There's a strong consensus in favor of measures that reduce edit warring, and that includes this policy, so it shouldn't be weakened. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not proposing a change in policy, so much as a change in the punishment meted out to offenders.  CJCurrie 05:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're proposing a fundamental change to the policy viz. that whether it's a blockable violation should depend on the quality of the edits. You wrote: "I propose ... [t]hat administrators be required to examine the nature of specific disputes." But the whole point of the policy is to limit edit warring, period, and also to create a strong culture against editing-by-revert, regardless of the quality of the material being reverted. If you're fixing someone's spelling mistakes and they keep reverting you, the thing to do is not to keep on reverting them back, because then there's no end to it. When it reaches the point where both have reverted three times, you should seek help from another admin, who can look to see whether the reinsertion of spelling errors has reached the level of disruption or vandalism, and if it has, other steps can be taken. But if it hasn't, if it remains at the level of a content dispute, then both editors have to be treated equally. I realize that it makes no sense sometimes, but most of the time it makes a lot of sense, because editors unfortunately disagree as to what constitutes a high-quality edit. There is a strong consensus in favor of the policy as it now stands. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested change: ''Only block as a last resort''

message: Would a note in the editsummary be more effective than a talkpage entry? Agathoclea 20:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People tend to claim the exception - rv banned user for example - but this then usually requires something on the talk page as evidence for whatever ban, block or whatever is claimed, since there generally isn't room in the summary William M. Connolley 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it can be rather tricky - I have been fideling with that and finally thought I cracked it - [ block log] - but I failed. Agathoclea 21:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  exceptions - editsummary 

message: The policy page was becoming a bit messy with exceptions listed in three places - and the three lists not agreeing. I have consolidated these into the 'Exceptions' section other than a short list in the 'Detail' section which includes the most common types and instructions to see 'Exceptions' for more info. Hopefully that will be uncontroversial, but in the process I also made a few changes which not everyone may agree with;
#I said that 3RR does not apply if there is no edit warring. I'm not sure why this would be controversial, but there hasn't seemed to be agreement on it.
#I changed a statement about "spam and vandalism" to just "vandalism" (with a link) since spam is listed as a type of vandalism.
#I removed a statement that 'removing warnings from your talk page is not allowed' because that is a proposed policy change which has been disputed.
#I moved the 'Administrator involvement' sub-section from 'Exceptions' to 'Enforcement' because it isn't an exception to when something counts as 3RR like the others, but rather an exception to who can enforce 3RR.
#I variously moved and reworded some things while attempting, possibly unsuccessfully, to retain the same meaning/intent.
Please comment / question / revise as needed. --CBD 10:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CBD, you seem to have added new material, or limited some of the exceptions, in your copy edit, so I'm removing them and trying to restore it to the way it was. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. I'm not a big fan of the 'reverting blocked users may be harassment if they are not being disruptive', but included it based on two prior ArbCom rulings to that effect which I have seen. The other two sections you edited were actually present before my update. --CBD 23:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, yes, I'm sorry, I just noticed they were there already. Someone added, for example, that users can't delete libel (beyond 3RR) if they're involved in editing the page, which is of course wrong. They can and must. Also, reverting blocked users is never harassment. And a few other things like that have been added, but I don't have time to look through it all carefully right now. Will do so later. Sorry for blaming the changes on you. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No worries. --CBD 23:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I noticed that under the recent changes to the 3RR policy and discussion here the example is no longer valid. Specifically the following:
:Note that if User B's last change had been, "Some critics contend that they are the worst band ever.", then none of User A's text would have been removed and it would not have counted as a revert.
This is especially true when you consider the following sentence from the policy:
:A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word.
Seems to me that even if User B only added "Some critics content that..." and left "the worst band ever." in the 4th edit it still meets the definition of a revert and gets them block. --Bobblehead 20:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example revision 

message: This is a RFC report that was filed on the ANI 3rr page
===User:Matyldalondyn and User:87.227.28.6 reported by User:Batman2005===
Matyldalondyn as well as his (probable) IP address User:87.227.28.6 have violated the 3RR rule on the Lukas Podolski page. 
Edits for Matyldalondyn
*1. 
*2. 
*3. 
*4. 
*5. 
Edits for 87.227.28.6
*1. 
*2. 
*3. 
*4. 
Please do something about this as well as the sock puppetry being employed by this user to input trivia into an article that has been reverted by 3 or 4 users as dubious and unsourced.
Time Report Made 22:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it appears Seraphim has not read the 3RR policies, I'll explain here. 
*1) continuously inserting dubious, unsourced information into an article is vandalism.
*2) sockpuppetry to do the above is also vandalism.
3RR clearly states the the removal of vandalism is not a violation of 3RR.  Furthermore, i had posted the repeated vandalism on  and no action had been taken thus far. The removal of vandalism is allowed, and I don't particularly appreciate this user trying to make me her example for not liking the way a policy works. Batman2005 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not using you as an example, i'm showing how the admin enforcement of the rule is inconsistent and that a problem does exist. I'm using WMC as an example, not you. Seraphim 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Batman2005, "continuously inserting dubious, unsourced information into an article is vandalism." Umm.... no. No it isn't. Read WP:VAND. --CBD 09:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm.... yes. Yes it is.  See "misinformation."  See the warning template that clearly says "Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."  Said user was inserting nonsense onto the pages.  It was determined to be nonsense by another user who verified it himself. Call it what you want, but its vandalism at its finest and my block was bullshit. Makes me not want to do the right thing anymore, from now on i'm just gonna leave said nonsense on pages and let someone else get punished for removing it, so much for wikipedia being about posting the verifiable truth.  What a joke this is. Batman2005 02:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The accounts you were edit warring with were trying to insert info about a soccer player not singing the national anthem of Germany when playing against his native Poland. That was presumably based on news stories like this one, and thus an entirely reasonable change. I see no discussion of the issue on the article talk page. Just reverting, false accusations of vandalism, and general incivility on your part. The block was warranted. Please learn to follow the dispute resolution procedures rather than edit warring and swearing when people do things you disagree with. --CBD 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop talking to me as if you're my father. We disagree, that news report is wrong, as was shown by another editor who clearly stated that the player NEVER sings the national anthem, you call it a false accusation of vandalism, I call it vandalism....and it was.  I'm guessing you've not watched the world cup games to see for yourself that the player never sings the national anthem? Batman2005 15:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to reiterate my point, my block was bullshit, and the shit the other guy was doing is vandalism. Batman2005 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concrete Example of a Problem 

message: Matyldalondyn as well as his (probable) IP address User:87.227.28.6 have violated the 3RR rule on the Lukas Podolski page. 
Edits for Matyldalondyn
*1. 
*2. 
*3. 
*4. 
*5. 
Edits for 87.227.28.6
*1. 
*2. 
*3. 
*4. 
Please do something about this as well as the sock puppetry being employed by this user to input trivia into an article that has been reverted by 3 or 4 users as dubious and unsourced.
Time Report Made 22:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it appears Seraphim has not read the 3RR policies, I'll explain here. 
*1) continuously inserting dubious, unsourced information into an article is vandalism.
*2) sockpuppetry to do the above is also vandalism.
3RR clearly states the the removal of vandalism is not a violation of 3RR.  Furthermore, i had posted the repeated vandalism on  and no action had been taken thus far. The removal of vandalism is allowed, and I don't particularly appreciate this user trying to make me her example for not liking the way a policy works. Batman2005 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not using you as an example, i'm showing how the admin enforcement of the rule is inconsistent and that a problem does exist. I'm using WMC as an example, not you. Seraphim 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Batman2005, "continuously inserting dubious, unsourced information into an article is vandalism." Umm.... no. No it isn't. Read WP:VAND. --CBD 09:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm.... yes. Yes it is.  See "misinformation."  See the warning template that clearly says "Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."  Said user was inserting nonsense onto the pages.  It was determined to be nonsense by another user who verified it himself. Call it what you want, but its vandalism at its finest and my block was bullshit. Makes me not want to do the right thing anymore, from now on i'm just gonna leave said nonsense on pages and let someone else get punished for removing it, so much for wikipedia being about posting the verifiable truth.  What a joke this is. Batman2005 02:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The accounts you were edit warring with were trying to insert info about a soccer player not singing the national anthem of Germany when playing against his native Poland. That was presumably based on news stories like this one, and thus an entirely reasonable change. I see no discussion of the issue on the article talk page. Just reverting, false accusations of vandalism, and general incivility on your part. The block was warranted. Please learn to follow the dispute resolution procedures rather than edit warring and swearing when people do things you disagree with. --CBD 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop talking to me as if you're my father. We disagree, that news report is wrong, as was shown by another editor who clearly stated that the player NEVER sings the national anthem, you call it a false accusation of vandalism, I call it vandalism....and it was.  I'm guessing you've not watched the world cup games to see for yourself that the player never sings the national anthem? Batman2005 15:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to reiterate my point, my block was bullshit, and the shit the other guy was doing is vandalism. Batman2005 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Matyldalondyn]] and [[User:87.227.28.6]] reported by [[User:Batman2005]]

message: Scanning the current state of this talk page, I see that the admins who enforce the 3RR are uniformly, without exception, against all changes which might soften the rule to allow for ordinary human imperfection, in, for example, forgetting how many reverts one has made in the past day.
"Follow 1RR and you won't have anything to worry about," they say.
"Don't allow temptation to cross your mind and you won't have anything to worry about," my pastor says.
To what extent is 3RR enforcement a psychological release for these admins?
After a hard day of fighting vandals and newbies, and POV-pushers, who can blame them for wanting to pop a few blocks? NoNameIsMe 10:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the word "war" used to describe a couple of people who both want to contribute to an accurate encyclopedia, but hold different points of view? (One of whom, I might add, stands a pretty good chance of not really wanting to contribute that much as soon as some frustrated admin lowers the boom.) 209.11.184.1 09:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An altogether immodest observation 

message: I took out the recent addition re bots. I don't think a blaket exemption like this is right. People should use their judgement, and be able to block bots if they think appropriate. At the very least this should be discussed before being added William M. Connolley 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bots 

message: Hi, I am sure this has been answered somewhere before. I just could not find it. What happens if the same user is blocked for 3RR on the same article more than once. Is there a crossover limit for something more drastic? -- Lost 07:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is mandated by policy in that area.Geni 07:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess it depends on the blocking admin then? Thanks -- Lost 07:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much so -- we have a lot of leeway when it comes to stopping edit wars. Some admins double the timeout for the second offense, and so on -- "if putting you in the corner for 24 hours didn't work to make you stop edit warring, maybe 48 will." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you -- Lost 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR more than once 

message: In a case where there are only 2-3 constructive editors under a barrage of unconstructive IPs, albeit non-edit-warring ones (4 IPs at 3 edits a piece), 3 reversions per editor can quickly run out, and that is without any content disputes. It seems that this is would create an application of 3RR which diverges from its original purpose, and could be taken advantage of to block editors not engaged in edit-warring. Is this a real, if unfortunate side-effect, or have I just misunderstood 3RR's application? Thanks for your assistance, TewfikTalk 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone does eventually reply to this, I would appreciate if they could notify me on my Talk. Thanks, TewfikTalk 02:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the non-constructive edits are blatant vandalism, as opposed to content disputes, then revert away.  The 3RR does not apply if you are reverting blatant vandalism.  Warning:  this only applies to blatant simple vandalism.  If it is a matter of content disputes, then what one person may consider unconstructive could be what others honestly see as proper (assume good faith).  In that case, the 3RR applies and is meant to prevent edit wars.  If you think someone is changing IPs to circumvent the 3RR, call it to an administrator's attention.  If the non-constructive edits aren't simple vandalism and you don't suspect sockpuppetry, then list the article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment.  This will call attention to the problem and hopefully attract non-partisan third parties to help with the issue.  As long as you follow appropriate dispute resolution procedures, it is actually quite difficult for people to use the 3RR policy as a club with which to beat you over the head.  When you take the dispute resolution process into account, I don't see this as a grey area so much the way the system is intended to work.  SWAdair 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grey area? 

message: The current policy says "Blocking is always preventative, not punitive."  I don't think this is a good statement to make.  I have seen cases at WP:AN/3RR where it takes quite some time to determine if a block was or was not in order.  At that point, if it is decided that a block was justified, the edit war may have abated.  I don't think the person who violated 3RR should get off easily just because it takes us a while to get the block done.  I support removing this sentence. Johntex\talk 17:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It being a week since this suggestion was made, and with no objections having been raised, I am making the edit ot the section. Johntex\talk 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of punitive blocking

message: This suggestion comes from WP:AN/I. Two notorious trolls, Thewolfstar, RJII, and their numerous sock minions, often disrupt the anarchism-related articles (see Template:Anarchism sidebar for the articles in question) by causing edit wars or by pushing their distinct POVs. Sometimes, good-faith editors in good standing get caught in the crossfire as administrators, not fully understanding the situation, can't distinguish sock puppets or trolls from actual editors, and either block everybody or block the wrong person. The tricky point is that, although reversions can cause disruption, it is necessary to continually revert these socks, because their edits completely derail the progress being made by drawing all attention away from it. It might be helpful to tack a note somewhere on WP:3RR pointing out the special attention that is required when dealing with this part of the encyclopaedia. --AaronS 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, reverting a sock of a banned user is undoubtedly a defence - but there is no deadline.  Post at WP:ANI or WP:AIV, and wait a short while.  There's usually someone about who will wield the cluebat. Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oftentimes, actually, nothing happens. That course has definitely been taken before. --AaronS 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: The pathetic thing about 3RR is that it makes it impossible to uphold the NPOV rule. If one or two biased editors decide that they want to enforce their POV in an article with only one neutral editor on duty (which happens often in my experience), all they have to do is keep on changing the article until the neutral editor can not revert any more. If he reverts once more, he gets banned instead of the policy violators. What happens is that articles become POV for 24 hours, and any vandal or biased editor gets to have a field day on that article in the meantime. And please don't say that an admin can intervene; in my experience they either never do, or don't take action until long after the 24 hour waiting period is up.
If you need a good example of this, check out Ayn Rand. This article, for whatever reason, is avoided almost entirely by admins. It took a year to get one vandal banned from destroying this article, and he wasn't even the worst one (the worst one is still editing it, despite multiple bans for unrelated infractions). Now, a new biased editor is messing with it, and, as usual, no admin is willing to get involved. It's sad that Wikipedia is so willing to coddle vandals at the expense of terminal POV articles. -- LGagnon 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thing happened with anarchism and related articles. I suspect it's because it's a tricky situation -- but that's all the more reason to get interested, not avoid it. It took well over a year to get the main antagonists of those articles banned. --AaronS 20:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you should mention anarchism; the guy who took a year to be banned at the Rand article vandalized anarchy-related articles so much there was an article about him in Indymedia pointing out the failings of Wikipedia. -- LGagnon 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading that. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You must be speaking of RJII. Randites and the like are probably the hardest to deal with, considering that Objectivism allows for very little compromise. --AaronS 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly who I mean. He and User:LaszloWalrus (the worst vandal of the Wikipedian Randist cult) have made a disasterous mess of articles related to Rand, and have made it impossible to make any of them neutral. For all intents and purposes, the NPOV rule doesn't apply to those articles, as the admins often refuse to ban Randists for policy violations on them. , they give bizzare excuses for not taking action, such as "it's too confrontational in there" or "I'm not really in the mood to deal with this". I can't help but sometimes wonder if Jimbo is trying to protect follow members of the cult. -- LGagnon 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, 3RR does not nullify WP:NPOV.  There is no deadline, if there is a POV-pusher then use WP:DR, or go to WP:RFPP. The only exception is WP:LIVING, and that's already exempt. Every POV pusher asserts that their POV is neutral, this is not about content it's abotu edit wars. Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made this argument over and over again, and I'll say it again: Dispute resolution does nothing. It's this very article that proves my point. You have no clue how many of the routes I've taken on the suggestion of admins and came back with nothing. I've tried every method the system provides, and none of them worked. The closest thing to a working solution was to send an admin there to fix the problem, and even then the problem just came back once he left because no vandals and/or biased editors were dealt with (the admin simply fixed up parts of the article). The problem isn't that I haven't tried everything; it's that the admins have tried nothing. -- LGagnon 22:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it took forever to block RJII even though it was obvious to probably dozens of editors that he was up to no good. He had numerous RFCs and one or two arbitrations and nothing ever came of it. And protecting pages punishes all the editors when there is usually only one or two that are causing problems. Too much collateral damage. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3RR also seems to facilitate gaming the system. --AaronS 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR nullifies NPOV

message: I am reverting edits made by an anonymous user on McComb, Ohio. The anonymous user keeps adding weblinks to the Public Library and Methodist church there. Neither of these is mentioned in the very stubby article. I have explained my rationale for removing these in my edit summaries, in the user's talk page, and at the article's talk page. What else can I do to avoid getting into 3RR trouble here while still keeping these links off the article (or is this spam reversion and OK)(or are these great links to have there)? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch 02:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stay within 3RR. What you are doing is not immune to 3RR. Its also not important enough to get worked up about William M. Connolley 07:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much. I will stay within 3RR (and have to date). The anonymous user has responded to my messages so I think we can work something out. I just didn't want to get into an edit war or other trouble. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 11:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for guidance 

message: There have been some occasions in which I've come close to violating the three-revert rule when removing unreferenced content from articles. In many cases editors simply restore their contributions without citing their sources, and because they weren't the first to revert they have the "last revert" (so to speak). Wikipedia:Verifiability supports the removal of such content ("Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor"), so I'm wondering if there should be a change to the current 3RR policy. Extraordinary Machine 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make myself clear, sorry. I meant cases in which the editor restoring the material makes no indication whatsoever that the article already contains references supporting it. Obviously, if the editor does say it is already sourced, then that's different. Extraordinary Machine 19:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My response was going to be "ok, that would be a bad faith revert, which is considered vandalism", however the WP:Vandalism has been recently been redrafted and bad faith reverts are no longer included. Personally, I would be happier with reverts that don't include adequate explanation being considered vandalism and therefore reversible, than modifying WP:3RR. Overall, however I consider that WP:BRD is a better strategy than multiple reverts in 24 hours. Addhoc 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I would say that removing unsourced stuff isn't immune from 3RR. Only blatant vandalism is. If its sufficiently obvious, it should be possible to find someone else to help you William M. Connolley 20:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an exception already for possible libel in biographies of living persons.  Jkelly 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, granted. And its caused problems at least once, since he threshold is unclear. But apart from that... William M. Connolley 20:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Wikipedia:Vandalism as an exemption can be a fuzzy line.  Trying to come up with a list of objective improvements that are immune to it is probably not a good idea, regardless; the system is already too prone to gaming.  Actually, I'd be willing to consider an experiment of getting rid of WP:3RR entirely if someone could come up with some system that allowed for ending edit wars which didn't encourage sockpuppetry.  Jkelly 23:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not comfortable with "parachuting in" users completely unassociated with the dispute and having them revert the other party just so that I avoid breaking the 3RR. That said, the "BOLD, revert, discuss" cycle doesn't always apply, particularly when the other party refuses to discuss the issue. Extraordinary Machine 00:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bold revert discuss is your last best hope. If it doesn't apply, the wiki you're using it on is broken. Big trouble! Please be sure to report such situations! Kim Bruning 08:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait? When dealing with *un*reasonable people? Hmm, then the people are broken and probably should be blocked. Call in an admin and show what's up. It's very interesting that the 3RR and Verifiability collide, despite claims by some that the latter would be non-negotiable. Could you provide diffs and a log entry? It's time we start providing references for guidelines! :-) Kim Bruning 08:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, there's no policy or guideline that allows the blocking of users who repeatedly insert unreferenced content without discussion or explanation. Repeatedly changing referenced content can be interpreted as "sneaky vandalism", but that's pretty much it, unless it's considered unreasonable and disruptive to restore uncited content repeatedly. Hmm, maybe verifiability isn't taken seriously enough (IMO). As for diffs, I had a run-in with an editor who kept reinserting unsourced material into  and  (see ,  and , among others). Extraordinary Machine 15:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing unreferenced content 

message: "This policy does apply to repeatedly moving, renaming, deleting..."
Is there any difference between moving and renaming? googl t 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving/renaming