Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule/Archive 2

message: Not quite hypothetically speaking, of course, but does repeated recreation of deleted content count as a revert for the 3RR? —Cryptic (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR and [[WP:CSD#G4|CSD G4]] 

message: I've been accused of a 3rr violation, on the basis that the first of the four reverts was the commenting out of a new addition. Does this qualify as reverting? Palmiro | Talk 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  query re what constitutes a revert 

message: Font tags are still acceptable in XHTML 1.0, and if they are used for purely visual presentation purposes, then there is no real harm in them—they degrade gracefully much like CSS rules (although they sure can clutter up the wikitext in a talk page).  —Michael Z. 2005-11-23 19:37 Z
:This is one of Andy's methods at derailing a conversation. Pay it no mind. (This must be the 6th time he's told/asked me to remove the FONT tags from my sig; it borders on disruption that he repeatedly asks IMO). —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 19:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that you again choose to make a dishonest personal attack, rather than discuss the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett 12:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecated HTML 

message: A discussion on the reformulation of the 3RR policy is taking place here: Wikipedia:Policypedia/Edit_warring. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A discussion on the reformulation of the 3RR policy

message: When copyrighted material is added to an article Wikipolicy says to revert to a version which does not include the copyrighted material. However, there is no stated exception to 3RR for removing copyrighted material - and it isn't listed as a a type of vandalism (or not vandalism for that matter). Should we expand the 3RR exception to 'simple vandalism and copyright violations', define copyright violations as a type of vandalism, or leave as is and potentially block users for reverting copyright violations? The issue came up recently when an admin was given a 24 hour block for violating 3RR where some (but not all) of the text reverted out was an admitted copyright violation. Which introduces a secondary issue - if an update includes some text which is copyright violation and some which is not is it incumbent on the reverter to identify the non-copyrighted text and leave it in place or may they revert the whole without worrying about 3RR (assuming there is consensus that copyright reverts shouldn't fall under 3RR in the first place)? --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: reverts of pure copyrighted aditions should probably be allowed. Mixed no.Geni 13:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation Reversions 

message: The main page now says "This policy does apply to repeatedly moving, renaming, deleting, undeleting, or recreating a page. All of those, if done excessively, are forms of edit warring."   This has stood unchanged for a few months, but now that someone has been put on the spot for it we seem to be shying away.
So, let's chat about it.  I'd propose that this be expanded to include protecting and unprotecting as well. 
brenneman(t)(c) 03:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd propose extending it that way, and would encourage extending it to include blocks. Wheel warring is as disruptive as edit warring. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocks are a bit more problematic.  Clearly unblocking yourself would be easy enough to pull under the covers of this.  But what if you blocked Geogre for 72 hours, then I block him for 24, then someone else blocks him for 72, then I block him for 48?  Is that a revert? - brenneman(t)(c) 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin reverts 

message: Admins shouldn't be allowed to block users for a revert war they have made two reverts or more in.  It creates some bad blood when this is done(I know from personal experience) and kind of allows for misuse by admins.--Urthogie 13:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested new addition to the rule 

message: 3RR has been an excellent policy to keep edit wars down.  It's too lenient however, and confusing, because it takes up to five edits to actually become a violation.
;Example
:Article exists (starting point for UserB)
:UserA makes a ridiculous edit.  (This doesn't count as a revert.)
:UserB reverts (revert 1)
:UserA reverts (revert 1)
:UserB reverts (revert 2)
:UserA reverts (revert 2)
:UserB reverts (revert 3)
:UserA reverts (revert 3)
:UserB reverts (revert 4, and a violation.)
:UserA reverts (revert 4, but fifth edit, and a violation.)
We should tighten 3RR against this.  UserA's initial edit should count as a revert.  It's that change that triggers the process. If the addition is that important, they should be using talk pages to discuss the addition, show verifiability, and get others to back up their addition.
Additionally, 3RR should mean 3RR, and not MORE than 3RR.  UserB should be using the article talk page as soon as they see a need to revert a second time and see that UserA is intent on keeping the information.  They should be showing why it shouldn't be there.
It shouldn't actually take 9 edits between two users to start triggering some intervention. SchmuckyTheCat 23:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tighten policy!

message: Am I going nuts or there was a Wikipedia:Don't blind revert article??!
--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blind revert 

message: Earlier today, Leyasu left a message on my talk page asking to be blocked because he violated 3RR on Children of Bodom.  I checked the diffs to make sure that it was a 3RR violation and then blocked him.  This would be fine and good, but I'm a party in his arbcom case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu).  Since he requested the block, I went ahead with it, but is it generally a good idea to block somebody for 3RR if you're in an arbcom case with them?  Or should I have given that duty to another admin?  (I don't have a whole lot of experience with blocking users, and this is the first arbcom case in which I've ever been involved.) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR blocks for other parties in ArbCom cases? 

message: I have created a page, Jewish terrorism, to discuss the history of Jewish terrorism. The user has redirected my page and reverted my changes. I would like to report this incident so that proper action be taken. I was also banned for violating this rule but it did know about this rule and nobody warned me. I had already warned user Urthogie not to violate this rule.
Siddiqui 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user seems unaware of the '3' in 3rr.  They have also crossposted this non-violation on other talk pages :)--Urthogie 14:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User: [[User:Urthogie|Urthogie]]  committed 3RR 

message: Another proposal:
:If the reverts were clearly vandalism, only one user needs to be blocked. In a situation of a revert-war, two or more users will be blocked. — Dzonatas 22:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely reject per my reason above. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto William M. Connolley 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto. Calton | Talk 00:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for equality 

message: * There is a consensus here to advertise discussion of policy changes, but it is not a unanimous consent on that. There is also a consenus to reject changes away from the "in whole or in part" language, but there is not a unanimous consent that, also.
* A simple consensus on either issue has failed. (This is where I disagree about an "edit war" because the reversions actually demostrate objections rather than intent to edit war.) The reverted text is still under objection. Just because one version now exists in the page does not mean there ie unanimous consent. The revert was made, so the objection is on the record.
* A proper route of consensus is needed. From the policies I have read, a proper route would start with a "request for comments." I am sure there is other means needed, as Katefan0 has tried wikien-l. I object to any arbitration of policy, as that would basically institutionalize the policy instead of promote a neutral point of view on the policy.
* The request for comments is about two issues: (1) the objection of the text "Reverting in this context means undoing the edits of another user" and to find a nuetral view of a revert, and (2) the objection of the text "in whole or in part."
* We should also undo the gordian knot, and that most likely means to split the 3RR page in to one or more policy pages that cover specific issues on edits, reverts, and likewise to keep it super simple. (Hint hint! Simple enough for those in primary, secondary, elementrary, junior high, high school, or any others schools under a college level to come to Wikipedia and take and active role without the need for censorship or being blocked and scolded and later feel like a social outcast. Do I really need to elaborate this last point? Wikipedia wants to build an encyclopedia over open content, but it needs to foster open content to those who want to use the encyclopedia. Oh... even I got to get some sleep now and wake up and do homework and not waste time here for awhile. ) 
— Dzonatas 22:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only consensus here is that you, and SiP, are wasting peoples time fiddling with the rules that everyone else accepts. Give it up. William M. Connolley 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly disagree; StrangerInParadise has not wasted time here. I also noticed your attempts to use of an ad populum with "everyone else accepts." People want to build an encyclopedia. However, when consensus is influenced by ad populum arguments, such as the attempts to thwart this discussion, then the overall ability to trust the articles as accurate are weakened. This page plays a strong role, as I have seen the 3RR used to influence the consensus on articles and, further, the views of the articles. We have only taken the matters that affect article consensus to its roots. It is of concern. Please, stop your reign of coercion. — Dzonatas 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone else does accept it. Please take William's advice. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: I've asked others to come and weigh in. StrangerInParadise 02:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posted at the Village Pump 

message: : I propose that you examine your recent contributions  and realise that you have made no productive edits for days weeks; that you reflect on this, and realise that you have misdirected your energies. William M. Connolley 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Must I remind you of the guidelines for the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club that you have signed up for:
Don't forget that part that says what HEC is about, "a group of contributors who will join to intervene in edit wars and work together to create a stable and neutral article, one which all parties to the edit war would agree is correct and good and satisfying." Under which, I hardly see your ability to block people as appropriate upon enlistment to HEC. As you patrol the AN/3RR page, I am positive you can find that an excellent resource to intervene and help editors work together. Instead, I see your only contributions , despite global warming issues, are to block editors, which I believe you should reflect upon and reconsider as misdirected energies.
Now, lets make peace. — Dzonatas 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL!  A bit rich when the problem was you staring a war over trying to remove references to your own edit warring habits from this policy - but full marks for skilful use of irony :-D Just zis Guy you know? 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With JzG arguments to take time to responsd here in this fashion, which could have been spent in a reply that respects evolution of a consensus in direct regards to the policy, I signify this as JzG's intent to have acknowledged an attempt at consensus exists, and JzG's decision to abstain from such consensus. However, JzG may wish to reconsider. — Dzonatas 18:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You what?  In as much as I can understand that sentence, I suggest it is a complete red herring.  I made a joke (see the smiley?). Just zis Guy you know? 09:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section header 

message: · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My proposal 

message: Wikipedia:Community assent. FYI · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest end-run attempt 

message: I found a some versions of interest:
* 09:10, 19 January 2006: first insertion of "administrator involvement"
* 08:10, 3 January 2006: first insertion of "Reverting in this context means"
* 12:05, 29 November 2005: first insertion about "old incidents"
* 02:06, 30 August 2005: first insertion of "in whole or in part"
* 09:59, 29 August 2005: re-insertion "undoing the actions of another editor" and first insertion of "use common sense"
* 13:40, 14 June 2005: removal of alternative header (text now joined with "Intent..."), insertion of HEC link
* 06:39, 22 March 2005: first insertion of 3RR template that had the words "undoing other people's edit" (words actually found in the  template, not in the 3RR policy)
* 18:22, 4 February 2005: first insertion of ArbCom's text
* 08:58, 6 January 2005: first insertion of "after your forth revert in 24 hours"
* 01:49, 29 November 2004: first insertion of the words "If you violate the three revert rule, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally." (verbatim by what was actually voted on: Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement) -- became policy
* 03:09, 15 August 2004: first link of "revert" to Wikipedia:revert (as this old version)
— Dzonatas 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historia 

message: I believe this helps clarifies what StrangerInParadise wanted to address while it also gives other editors what they wanted:
:"Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that."
— Dzonatas 12:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  in whole or part continued 

message: Would replacing 3RR with 1RR for non-logged users be useful for Wikipedia ? I believe it could reduce the number of revert wars at no additional cost. --Lysytalk 10:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Unless we have no choice we should avoid treating IPs as second class editors.Geni 11:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why ? I believe it must had been discussed million times and I'd appreciate a pointer to a previous discussion on this. --Lysytalk 12:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1RR for not logged users ? 

message: I agree with StrangerInParadise that the additions of "in whole or in part" have expanded the policy further than it was originally intended to go.  Robert McClenon 12:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact of the matter is that this has been standard practice for as long as I've been an administrator (since summer), and possibly longer than that.  Reflecting practice in the policy isn't unusual. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 13:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Policy 

message: I would like to see the sentence on sockpuppets expanded to include collusion of editors to avoid 3RR by having more than one reverter. I know reversion wars is a bad thing but the policy should make it clear that this method of avoiding the current policy is not acceptable. For an example see Dean McVeigh. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is problematic. Suppose 3 sensible people agree that the article is correct, therefore revert in the same way... you see the problem? William M. Connolley 22:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that occurred to me just after I hit save page. The issue of collusion is still a concern. I can't think of a way to apply some focus to it which is why I made a comment here. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 3RR applies to each person, and if there are three people who hold a view, the 3RR applies to each of them separately. However, it is not very nice to use sheer numbers to force through a change, and courtesy would dictate that the conflict be resolved through discussion, not "this side has five reverts left in its quota". If a neutral admin sees mutiple reversions going on an article between two parties, the best action is probably to protect the page, at the m:wrong version of course, and point the gladiators to the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Good link. In the example that prompted this it is a case of zealous POV editors overwhelming somewhat less zealous NPOV editors. On reflection I see that 3RR can not resolve this situation. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collusion 

message: Sorry if this has been discussed before, but is there a statute of limitations on 3RR violations? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know something about this :-). There is no explicit statute; but in the spirit of preventative-not-punitive, dredging up old offences is considered Poor Form and unlikely to be acted on. William M. Connolley 23:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You repeatedly "dredge up old offences" against people you don't like WMC. What hypocrisy.  204.56.7.1 20:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Reddi William M. Connolley 21:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's kind of what I was figuring, but just wanted to make sure. Thanks, Billy. ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part anything much over say 24 hours is likely to be sent back, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally burried in soft peat for three-months and recycled as fire-lighters.Geni 01:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statute of limitations 

message: :If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours (UTC), sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.
I am convinced this should be tweaked after talking to User:Alienus. If a stable version of the article exists; and is changed by a new editor to the article; it would make sense to apply the 3RR to the newcomer; not established editors trying to protect the consensus/stability of an article. It is an insult to long time editors that they could be banned because a POV warrior, sockpuppet or anon is pushing their edit with little/no/or ongoing discussion on the matter at hand. - RoyBoy 800 19:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, "long-time" users should not be treated as superiors to anons or "new members" as they are not.  Simply editing a lot doesn't entitle you to do whatever you want.  --MateoP 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maintaining a stable version of the article doesn't qualify as "doing whatever you want" to me. The emphasis here isn't on old versus new users, it is stable vs. unstable articles. The people who tend to revert back to stable versions are doing the conscientious thing; whereas those who initiate the change tend to be newer to the article and Wikipedia. To treat them as equals editorially is great; but to treat them as equals regarding punishment; seems short sighted. - RoyBoy 800 06:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that the test applied to determine simple vandalism is usually quite strict; adding or removing POV tags is not simple vandalism
If anyone doesn't like this then... we can have a nice revert war over it William M. Connolley 21:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweak on treating all users equally 

message: MateoP has twice deleted these two sentences from the article: This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. It seems to me to be a commonsense description of current practice, and is useful as a reminder and warning to people that edit warring isn't okay, and that there is no "right" to three reverts per day.  I'd like to hear what others think so we avoid any sort of continuing edit war as I've reverted MateoP's deletion twice now. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with KF that the text reflects policy. I'm slightly less sure it should be in there - instruction creep and all that - but I certainly wouldn't want it removed on the grounds that it was *not* policy William M. Connolley 12:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not instruction creep, it's a reference to the policy and precedent on disruption.  It would be wrong to give the impression that you can make three reverts and get away with it when you're clearly making a WP:POINT. Just zis Guy you know? 22:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Vagueness is never good; it allows arbitrary blocking.  There is nothing on the blocking policy page that says someone can be blocked for "edit warring".  Please provide wikilinks if you are going to claim a policy exists.  "Common practice" is not an exceptable substitute on this issue because of hte arbitrary nature.  --MateoP 21:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Rewording this would satisfy me.  It must be phrased from the perspective that a user can be blocked for reasons other than 3RR during a dispute.  But avoid vague subjective terms such as "edit warring" which not only are not part of policy, but can lead to arbitrary POV blockings.
Then I would be satisfied with the inclusion if it is a simple statement that a user can be blocked for something other than 3RR during disputes.  --MateoP 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy under which someone would be blocked for edit warring fewer than four times is disruption. Maybe instead we could do something like "...for disruptive edit warring even if they do not revert more than..." The thing here, really, is disruption. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think specifics are necessary in this article.  This is not the general blocking policy page.  Instead we should simply state that users can be blocked for offenses other than 3RR during a dispute and give a wikilink to the general blocking policy page.  Users can be blocked for a lot of things, not just "disruption", and this not the page to list general blocking policy  --MateoP 22:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree, for all the reasons I've already stated. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree (strongly). Discretion must be possible (in both directions) William M. Connolley 21:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree strongly, this leads to arbitrary blocks, and a lack of equality on the site.  --MateoP 22:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is always acceptable.  Users can also be blocked for other offenses during disputes, such as disruption in extreme cases.  See Wikipedia:Blocking policy for more information.
Note that I'm giving up a LOT here, and you've given virtually nothing.  --MateoP 23:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to be obstreperous, but that doesn't do the job at all.  It fails to connect the idea that less than 4 reverts can still get you blocked if an adminisrator feels it's disruptive enough to warrant such a thing. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does.  "other offenses during disputes" means "not 4 reverts."  Giving specifics is not the point in this article.  Now I gave up a whole lot to compromise, at least give up this very little.  --MateoP 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no compromising on Wikipedia's policies, this isn't some random article about (insert subject here). · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no right to three reverts 

message: A user makes an edit to an article based on their opinion. I provde several verifiable reasons why they should consider the reverted text. Since I reverted first, I get hit by the 3RR rule, and the original editor gets to keep their un-verifiable change, despite my requesting ANY verifiable evidence for their change.
What can an editor do, when one's verifiable evidence is IGNORED, and their opinion is never substantiated? --Iantresman 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Realise that its an article content question, not a 3RR question... William M. Connolley 21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it effects 3RR directly. Someone who follows all of of Wikipedia's policies may fall foul of 3RR, and yet someone who doesn't may not. There is something wrong with a policy that is supposed to uphold Wiki policy? --Iantresman 21:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  3RR *is* policy, so you can't fall foul of 3RR if you stick to policy... if there are only two people fighting this revert war, how can you expect to win by reverting? Find others to offer their opinions William M. Connolley 21:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Stick the page with a cite sources tag or NPOV tag.  If he removes those, you can either ask a sysop or someone else to put the tag in until the dispute is resolved.  If this person removes legitimate tags, he could be in trouble for that.  --MateoP 21:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do all that, yet one of the editors can provide an unsubstantiated opinion, I can provide verifiable citations to my point, and it doesn't get resolved. I even have other editors disagreeing with the other editor. --Iantresman 23:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Reverting never produces any longstanding results. If you have a problem with a disruptive editor that does not want to abide by WP:V, place a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried that. Everyone tells me that unless it's either a 3RR or vandalism case, that all other policy disputes such a verifiability should go through the dispute resolution process.... which is subject to consensus (a guideline), rather than policy. In other words, these latter policies are not enforceable. --Iantresman 17:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR without verification

message: Per Wikipedia:Vandalism (an official policy)–
:;Removing warnings
::Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.
If anything this is redundant, but it ensures regular editors (if someone is repeatedly removing warnings) have a recourse for such situations. Removing warning tags is likely a way to avoid a block/ban as well (since an admin that arrives to assess the situation may not see the warnings without going into the page history). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is already endorsed by [[WP:VAND]]

message: This text got added:
:Note that, for the purposes of counting reverts, successive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three seperate successive edits with no edits by intervening editors, each one of which would be a revert on its own, this is only counted as one.
which I edited to:
:Note that, for the purpose of counting reverts, successive edits by the same editor prior to another editor's reversion are considered to be one. Thus, if an editor makes three separate successive edits—each one of which would be considered a revert on its own—but there are no intervening reverts by other editors, these edits are only counted as one revert.
which got edited to:
:For the purposes of counting reverts, consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which would be a considered as a revert on its own, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert.
I agree that the original and the final are more readable than my edits.  Problem is, the better wordings are incorrect.  If somebody makes three edits to a given paragraph, forming a revert, and someone else happens to make an intervening edit to the see also section, that does not effect the reversion.  You have to get reverted for the counter to increment, so to speak.
(On a minor side note: "for the purposes of counting"?  "Counting" is, er, are, "purposes" now?  My dictionary doesn't say "counting" is a plural....) --TreyHarris 16:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia admins for the most part know how to count.Geni 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Trey's version is wrong. I would only accept "grouping" of reverts with no intervening edits by other users at all, even unrelated ones. I think this reflects how 3RR is currently interpreted, so I don't see removing the text as useful William M. Connolley 20:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's bizarre.  A person should have control over whether they are reverting a third time (or second time, or whatever) or not.  By allowing any intervening edit to affect the counter, one could do multiple reverts without even realizing it.  (Note that you don't get an edit conflict page if someone else makes an intervening edit that doesn't deal with the same text you're changing, so it's quite possible to make multiple consecutive edits without even realizing someone else has slipped another edit in.) There's no way to say "save page, only if no one has edited since I opened this edit box". --TreyHarris 21:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand you. one could do multiple reverts without even realizing it - how does this make sense? Unless you're referring to the theoretical possibility that a genuine good-faith edit could happen to be a revert. William M. Connolley 21:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simple.  I'm doing a single revert, but it involves two sections, so I decide to click on each section and edit separately.  I click edit on the first section, I make my revert and save, and then I click edit on the second section—but while I'm examining the text box looking for the text I want to revert, someone else comes along and edits an entirely different section of the article (say, see also).  I finish my second revert and click save.  I had no idea that someone else intervened, but by your wording, I've made two reverts, not one, because another edit intervened.  Why should I be penalized for the other editor's action? --TreyHarris 21:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I prefer William's version. Although it's true that when people are editing different sections simultaneously there's no edit conflict and they mightn't even know that others had edited until they checked the history, I think I would only accept several reverts as one if they were made in very close succession and if it were obvious from the edit page history that they could have been made as one. If an editor makes changes to the third, fifth, tenth, and twelfth paragraphs, and another editor wants to revert everything except the tenth paragraph, so does three separate section edits rather than a full page revert, and while he's doing it, another editor changes a comma to a semicolon in the last paragraph, and there's no edit conflict, I'd be quite happy to count the reverting editor as having made one revert. But if he reverts one paragraph, and then goes off and edits four different articles, and then comes back and reverts a different paragraph, I would count that as two reverts. AnnH ♫ 21:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about using the user's contribs to judge successiveness, rather than the edit history?  If you make four successive edits, with the first affecting the first graph, the second the second, the third the third, and then the fourth to re-revert someone who just reverted you, then you've made two reverts, not four. --TreyHarris 21:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New wording on counting 

message: I've noticed recently 3RR being applied in a way that can follow the letter of the policy, but is unfairly applied, and can worsen a dispute or be counter productive to protecting stability.
Please rememeber the principle of WP:LAWYER. "Such policies and procedures are intended to be interpreted in a common sense way which expresses the purpose of the policy or which tends toward resolution of disputes."
If applying 3RR, or any other wikipedia policy, would be self defeating, then apply your own discression to how they are applied. --Barberio 16:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LAWYER isn't policy. Experence suggests that once people start applying more than an absolute minium of discression to the 3RR the system breaks down.Geni 18:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, WP:LAWYER is an Arbitration Committee precedent refering to how Policy should be implimented. --Barberio 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? I'll worry about that when I end up in front of arcom. In practice we tried the "common sense sprit of the rule" aproach. The amount of bad feeling generated was impressive. People don't like being blocked. They really don't like it when it appears that blocks are being applied inconsistantly (the general result from useing "common sense").Geni 01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common sense. 

message: I have been editing the wikipedia article on John Brignell and have reached a point where I just don't know how to proceed. Any advice on this would be appreciated.
John Brignell is a retired British Professor of Engineering Measurement, a discipline which involves knowledge of material properties, statistics, computer modelling, and related areas. On retiring he wrote a book on the abuse of measurement in the media, and set up a web site to support it. His website is mostly a blog in which he draws attention to stories in the media and picks the science in them to pieces, but like any blog it wanders into other areas, and he is very much a skeptic. He recently got into an argument with some Australian pro-environmentalists and bloggers, John Quiggan and Tim Lambert. These two appear to have conspired to create an anti-Brignell article, first in Sourcewatch, another wiki, then here. The article in general is slanted to make Brignell look like a crank, and in particular breaches a number of wikipedia guidelines. It's possible that William M. Connolley, an admin here, is also part of the group.
These people actively work to prevent any attempt to change the article in any meaningful way. Any important change to the article is labelled either POV or vandalism and reverted, and they tag team to make sure their revert stays in place. Occasionally they will allow an edit through, but then twist it to their own use. They freely interpret wikipedia guidelines in any way that will support their own actions, and stonewall any attempt at reasoned discussion.
When I first started editing the article, I was tag team into a revert war and then banned under the 3RR. I had no idea at the time that this existed.
I then listed the article for mediation with the cabal. When I did so there was a concerted effort on their part to improve the quality of the article before the mediation kicked in. During the course of the mediation some improvement was made, but eventually it fell through because they repeatedly stonewalled, especially after they discovered that the mediator was not taking any active part in the discussion. Eventually the mediator withdrew from the mediation and since then they have returned to their pre-mediation behaviour.
They suggested that I list the matter with the arbitration committee and I did so; that committee rejected it because it was a content dispute.
I have tried to interest third parties in the matter through rfcs and posts on the village pump area but nobody seems interested.
A related problem arose in the Relative Risk article. Quiggan moved a section of the John Brignell article to that article, and that has been developed into a statement of and demolition of a view held by John Brignell. Except that it is a misstatement of his view: a correct statement of what he has said makes that section of the Relative Risk article nonsense. After attempting to edit the article and having my edits repeatedly reverted, I listed the Relative Risk article for mediation. All other parties ignored the listing, and the request fell off the end of the list. 
Since then I have again tried to edit the Brignell article, but have been banned under the 3RR rule, despite the fact that I have not made more than two edits in any 24 hour period.
I do not know how to proceed with this. Can anyone offer any suggestions? Any help would be appreciated.
:Please sign your messages. Thank You! --Siva1979Talk to me 20:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help would be appreciated 

message: I added this new section. It comes up sometimes, and perhaps putting it in expicitly would encourage/enable more people to take advantage of it William M. Connolley 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've broken 3RR and repent of my sin! What do I do? 

message: This is it. Nothing more. OK, I know there got to be some rules of conduct, but the wiki has succeeded in making an idea of a Wells's sci-fi novel come true: the wiki rules of conduct change during period from, say, 2002 to 2006 are similar to, roughly, transition from the roaring 20ies to the hard-core Victorianism. 3RR ban should be either exercised with caution (ie., not to actually protect multiple-identities vandals), or to be cancelled altogether.Mir Harven 16:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A front for sockpuppeteering vandals