Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule/Archive 1

message: I'm happy to accept the emerging consensus that 3RR (or the enforcement of 3RR) should not apply to reverts that are dealing with vandalism, although I do still feel it is a mistake. However, I crave indulgence from the community for keeping the initial statement of the 3RR on this page clear and simple. The exemption for reverting pure vandalism is a minor addendum, in my mind, rather than a fundamental part of the guideline. Martin 17:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there really consensus for this change? It seems rather dangerous, considering how much leeway there is in defining vandalism. anthony 警告 03:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally agree about the potential for danger. Hopefully if it does cause problems it can be changed back. Martin 01:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: this comes directly from Jimbo (says Neutrality in an edit comment)
I still feel that the statement of the 3RR at the top of the page should be short, simple, and to the point. The vandalism exception is a minor one, in my opinion. Martin 01:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  re vandalism 

message: The example given on the page about repeating chess moves seems to suggest no more than 3-reverts of an edit.  However, the rule refers to an article.  For example, a user might go through the article on say Rodney King and put it several distinct edits which are either factually wrong or clearly POV, but with a few goods ones mixed in the middle.  Because of the few good ones interspersed, I cannot hit the revert button just once.  Instead, I would need to go through and remove each of the incorrect edits one at a time.  This might well end up being more than 3 reverts, though at different points in the same article.  Does that violate the rule?  If not, could we get a clarification in the rule.  I would be willing to change my vote on enforcement to yes if such an amendment was made.
The reason this occurs to me is that I have seen this tactic used quite intentionally — mixing a few reasonable edits in with a bunch of objectionable ones to make it much more burdensome to revert. Wolfman 03:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page clearly talks about articles pages, not edits.  However, I see this as one of the many fundamental flaws in this policy. anthony 警告 13:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  article or edit? 

message: This rule has always applied to all pages, regardless of whether they are in the article namespace or not. The poll at Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement was based on this interpretation. In light of the confusion over some of the Arbitration Committee's rulings that said "any article" and the existence of the page Wikipedia:What is an article, it is important that the text of this rule continue to read this way. --Michael Snow 23:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page, not article 

message: Although it seems clear enough to me, confusion still arises regularly over a couple of points:
* Whether the 24-hour period refers to 24 hours from the first revert, or a calendar day in some unspecified timezone ("Wikiday?")
* Whether three reverts are acceptable (maybe it would be better to use a sentence structure like "do not revert four or more times...")
I suggest that a sentence is added to bold text at the beginning of the article to clarify these points. - Jakew 23:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (a) It refers to any 24 hour period.  (b) Three reverts are acceptable. VeryVerily 00:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. That's what I thought. Have added a sentence to the bold text - let me know if you think it helps clarify. - Jakew 00:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed, apparently 

message: A few recent editors have tried to insert what I would call a definition of a revert.  My feeling is that this page should reflect only the rule itself, but that discussion about what a revert is or what constitutes one should happen in Wikipedia:Revert, since that is the page referenced by the rule. -- Netoholic @ 18:20, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
:Yes, I think that Wikipedia:Revert should contain discussion of what a revert is, and should refer to (rather than redirect to) Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version for information on how to perform one type of revert.  Wikipedia:Three-revert rule should in turn refer to Wikipedia:Revert for the definition.  —AlanBarrett 11:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have placed a definition at Wikipedia:Revert.  —AlanBarrett 13:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining what a revert is 

message: I took a very big gamble and opened up a new section on this pag eon my own initative.  I did this since I could not help noticing there is no link to a "violator" or "alert" section.  This page would be a good enough place it seems!  Other people have wondered about this too, i.e. where to report violators of teh 3 revert rule.  Lets keep it here! Thanks -Husnock 2Feb05
:I see that idea was reverted in under 2 minutes.  Would it be so wrong to have it here?  The Admin discussion page is packed full of things not having anything to do with this rule.  Since vandalism has its own report page, why not the 3 Revert Rule? -Husnock
:Have you had trouble getting someone blocked? Gazpacho 06:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to Report

message: This rule is a sick way of silencing people acting in good faith.  It allows lawyer-minded borderline vandals to threaten others with punishment, with impunity.  Chamaeleon 21:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very few people love it, we just can't come up with anything better that everyone likes, and can live with in practise. Please suggest something better! Noel (talk) 03:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sick 

message: Sometimes the Arbitration Committee bans particular users from editing certain pages.  I propose that the sentence "(This doesn't apply to self-reverts or correcting simple vandalism.)" be changed to "(This doesn't apply to self-reverts, enforcement of Arbitration Committee rulings, or correction of simple vandalism.)", which is also better English. --Zero 09:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Enforcement of Arbitration rulings has nothing to do with reverting.  In my opinion adding this text would only confuse the reader.  If you're suggesting the users should be allowed to get into revert wars with users who are already under an editing ban, I don't think there is policy on this.  The editing ban should be enforced by an admin blocking the user for up to 24 hours; then the other editors could clean up the mess without resorting to edit warring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Zero; ArbCom rulings often include statements to the effect that edits by certain editors on various articles can be immediately reverted.  These edits in themselves should be counted as simple vandalism, so reverting them should be count towards a 3 revert total.  Zero's wording clarifies. Jayjg (talk) 15:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. Keep the basic rule clear, simple and well-written for those of good will; add the subclauses and riders for the creatively antisocial later - David Gerard 11:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rewording 

message: I am one of several editors who have changed some of the punctuation on this page to follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which calls for the "logical" quoting style. Neutrality has reverted these changes several times. He has called these edits arbitrary. My response: in following the history of this page, as far as I can tell, the logical style was used in the first instance a quote was used on this page. (See this diff). So changing the style back to the original hardly seems arbitrary, but reverting (multiple times) away from the original, and away from the house style, does seem arbitrary.  Jonathunder 04:52, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
:Inconsistency happens, I guess - David Gerard 13:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. Only reason doesn't work on this one! Unfortunate though that is, jguk 19:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple reverts on this page 

message: I was told page moves count as reverts. Eh? --SPUI (talk) 05:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine any good reason for a page to be moved multiple times a day. (Unless one is fighting page move vandalism, which obviously doesn't count toward the limit.) If users are fighting over where the page should be, it's probably best to list it on requested moves to try to get some consensus as to the article title. Jonathunder 20:06, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
Is there consensus on this? After I added it to WP:3RR, it was soon reverted. If it does indeed apply, it's definitely not obvious. --SPUI (talk) 04:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The next version of mediawiki will have a move log.Geni 18:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moves

message: Does it apply and should it?Geni 13:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably apply on the user's talk page. But on subpages and the main user page, no, I don't believe it should apply. --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 04:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: User name space

message: After my run-in on Adolf Hitler with an anon with unlimited IPs  (83.109.*.*) who was reverting to an old, non-consensus version, I'm requesting modification of the rules, for the following reasons:
*It is impossible to enforce 3RR for anons with dynamic IPs, unless you want to block whole ISPs, which most apparently don't support.
*As a result of this impossibility, an anon on multiple IPs can repeatedly revert a page regardless of how many users try to revert to the consensus version
*Pages will be needlessly protected, including being protected with the non-consensus content, because the anon may be unlikely to talk on the talk page, or not even interested in consensus (which is the case with Adolf Hitler)
There are probably other reasons, but my fingers are getting tired.  My original proposed modification was elaborated by User:nsh on WP:AN/3RR, and would allow a person to revert "bad faith edits", which would include edits reverting to a non-consensus version with no intention of talking on the talk page (we could wait a day for them to respond on the talk page and then revert and consider future edits bad faith if they are of a similar nature, without having to wait another day), or for users repeatedly changing IPs for no apparent reason (the anon on Adolf Hitler changed his IP at least 6 times within a very short period (under an hour, I think).)  
I'm not sure if this original proposal will go through, so another, more rational proposal, would be to change 3RR application from blocking the user from making ANY edits for 24 hours to blocking the user from making edits on the specific article(s) on which the 3R took place.  This would be a retroactive block in the sense that others would watch the article for the person's edits, and if the person again edited the article in that 24 hour period, THEN they could be considered for full-blocking from all edits.  This makes a lot more sense.  Comments on either proposal?  As it stands, the current policy is lacking, and favors anon POV pushers over good-faith editors. --brian0918™ 01:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Have you read the meta article on the wrong version (every seems to think their version is consensus)? your policy risks giving the advantage to those who are treating the article as thier article. In the end if it is vandelism you can revert it and if it is extream POV you should be able to find someone to throw in a few reverts. If you can't then you probably don't have the consensus you think you have.Geni 16:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed modification

message: Does the 3RR apply to restoration of the NPOV tag?
The article on Aesthetic Realism has been relentlessly edited by adherents of this philosophy, who want the article to accept the claims of the proponents as fact and to denigrate all critics, especially those who charge that Aesthetic Realism is a cult.  Because the article is so biased, its neutrality is legitimately challenged.  Some recent edits removed the NPOV tag.  I have restored it.  Does the 3RR mean that I can restore the tag only three times per day?  I suppose I could claim that its removal wasn't a good-faith edit, but anyone removing it would of course angrily retort that the removal was in good faith.  One problem is that Aesthetic Realism is a fairly insignificant viewpoint (few adherents, little influence on other schools of thought), so the article is an unimportant one that attracts almost no attention from any editors who aren't involved in the group.  My feeling is that, if after three reverts I can no longer correct a biased statement in the article, I should at least be able to continue to warn the reader about the situation. JamesMLane 18:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of NPOV tag

message: I'm one of those who assumed that the policy is meant to stop editors from doing the same revert more than 3 times in one article.
We have a translation of this policy in HuWiki and we just had a problem where there were 2 parties involved first reverting Section A 3 times, then making some edits and then reverting Section B 3 times (both of them).
Do I understand correctly that according to the policy, they both must be blocked?
If the answer is yes, than is it possible to make this explicit in the text of the policy? (Maybe it's a language problem, but still.)
Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 14:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: a revert is a revert is a revert. It doesn't matter which version you revert to.Geni 16:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification: any revert in the same article? 

message: User:Mzajac changed the Gdansk exception to read (whole paragraph quoted):
:After making a reversion, do not do so again more than twice within 24 hours of the initial one. This policy does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism. Reverts intended to perform maintenance—such as on the Introduction or the Sandbox—are likewise allowed. Another exception are reverts allowed under the circumstances outlined in Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE:_Enforcement, although you'll have to muddle around for a while before you can figure out what this exception really means.
As I understand it, the Gdansk exception is clearly a good rule, it deserves to be made comprehensible. My wording would go:
:Reverts intended to maintain community consensus with reagrds to proper names are also exempt under this rule, although tis exception, which we call the Gdansk exception is new and its precise applicability is still being negotiated.
Is that an acceptable wording? --- Charles Stewart 13:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute the point about the vote, but I do dispute the analysis.  Far from condoning edit warring, by permitting only one side exemption, it should provide a disincentive to revert wars.  --- Charles Stewart 14:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I see the hairiness and I am convinced it is not a good exemption. --- Charles Stewart 15:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: nah by the standards of the disspute that's pretty minor.Geni 17:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: on the basis we can't seem to make the 3 revert rule itself self evidant in one sentance this may be tricky. However "reverting to the version that was decided by the vote" is probably your best bet. Of course this may require disscression on the part of the admins.Geni 17:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording of the Gdansk exception

message: Our rule states 'after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours'. Is there any binding rule, suggested policy or custom determining the exact lenght of the block? What if there is no consensus between sysops for the lenght? If there is no rule, what to do in cases when one sysop block a given user for 24h, other determins the block is too long and lifts it before the 24h expires? See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Halibutt for specific case I am involved in, but note I raise this issue here as a general question for future reference. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's up to admins to decide among themselves what period of block is most applicable.  Any admin may reduce or even completely lift a block if the blocked editor expresses contrition and promises to be good in future.  Conversely, a block that is believed to be too short may be lengthened.  Admins are chosen because they're believed to be capable of interacting well with others, so such disagreements are usually resolved in a very civilised manner. We don't like to make our rules too tight, we like to give admins, just as our editors, some discretion and room for civilised disagreement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: most block for 24 hours since it is the only way to deal with issues of time zones.Geni 15:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem is that if someone breaks the 3RR just before they log off for that day blocking for 12 hours may have no effect.Geni 12:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up to ? 24h 

message: I've noted that the 3RR generally isn't applied to editors reverting changes to their own user page space. When the querulous have tried placing such reversion on WP:AN3 (generally "he reverted my changes to his page four times! ban him!"), they have generally been told to go away and stop being silly - David Gerard 13:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish it was more consistent (re: Anthony), but I think most people generally agree with this principle. -- Netoholic @ 15:34, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
I think the current wording is a hostage to fortune.  Just wait for someone to start an edit war in his own user space and then report the other parties for 3RR.  Also I don't see the point--why let people edit war anywhere? In my view this principle should be watered down somewhat at the very least, or perhaps accompanied by a warning about the folly of indulging in provocative or disruptive behavior anywhere on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Concur.  There's certainly "creep" towards use of User pages in a way that ought not to be given infinite "user space" latitude -- e.g., as RFA complaints, as mini-Wikiprojects, as "banks"...  I'd prefer to look at it as a broader definition of what's reasonably "vandalism" on user pages (it's my user page, and I don't want that there), rather than narrowing the scope of the 3rr per se.  Alai 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User pages 

message: What if two users are both blocked for 3RR violation and one of them returns through one of his known sockpuppets, but doesn't resume the revert war (just starts complaining about the block). Does hiw sock need to be blocked, too for the original period (e.g. 24h)?
Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 04:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, the 3RR, like any other policy, applies to users, not to accounts. --Carnildo 06:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think the sock should be blocked, and the block counter reset for a full 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 16:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked user returning through a known sock 

message: I propose to lower the limit of 3 to only one revert within 24h for anonymous edits. This would help limiting the number of edit wars with people evading the 3RR by means of dynamic IP allocation. --Lysy (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppose we count all anons as equal, so that only 3 anon reverts in 24 hrs are allowed. --Zero 09:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: What if they're reverting both ways?  Also, how what would happen when the limit of three was hit? Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm supposed to have all the answers ;-)?   I guess the idea would be that an anon who made a revert that was already done 3 times by an anon (same or different IP) in the same 24 hr period could be blocked right away.  The situation that occurs is when one IP reverts 4 times, gets blocked, then comes back as a new IP to continue reverting.  We should be able to block the new IP immeditately without waiting for 4 reverts, and without needing to verify they are the same person.  But I haven't thought this through very much.  --Zero 00:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So we'll train anons who only have a limited number of IPs to create more sockpuppets (you can still create a fresh sockpuppet for each revert and come off scot free unless people make assumptions based on behaviour that you're the same people, so that's going to be necessary anyway). I'm all for building better mousetraps, but I don't think we need ply ourself to traing better mice. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 01:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Allow only single revert/24h per IP. If this is exceeded, apply regular enforcement on the IP. If one has to play reverts, he should get himself a userid. If someone wants a sockpuppet, he'd get one anyway, but that's easier to trace as the sockpuppets are fresh. Similar revert limitations could apply to new usernames (having less than X edits). --Lysy (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous reverts 

message: For 203.xxx, I reverted your copy edit because some of the wording seemed slightly to water down how strictly the rule is applied. You referred to a "rule of thumb" at one point, and also wrote: "If you feel you need to ... exceed the 3RR rule, please seek the opinion of reputable Wikipedians," which might be interpreted to mean that it's sometimes okay to violate it so long as reputable Wikipedians say so. ;-) I'm sure that's not what you meant, but someone might read it that way. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
*Hey there, I'm relieved to have stumbled across your post, as the blanket revert without apparent comment was a bit on the nose. But point taken. Anyway, the introduction still requires polish, so I've had another go. 203.198.237.30 08:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of my revert

message: The intro paragraph says The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion. (This does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism.   When I look at the reversion article, it says A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time.
Surely the 3RR is not meant to use such a strict definition of "revert", is it?  To me, that exact wording implies that one could continually insert (or remove) a controversial tag, and as long as intervening unrelated edits are kept, it's not a violation of 3RR.  Am I reading things incorrectly, or should that wording be changed? Friday (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is intro paragraph correct?