Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Proposed Qualifier

Proposed qualifier: "...except in the case where the reverts were of clear vandalism as defined in Wikipedia:Vandalism."

--I have moved this here because it should not be brough up as part of the enfourcement, but should actually apply to the 3RR itself. →Raul654 03:19, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting question. However, I don't feel this addition is necessary, for two reasons.
Firstly, the 3RR can be tweaked with this sort of detail, should people feel it's a good idea.
Secondly, I don't feel that it's a good idea! :) Vandals are already blockable, so the 3RR doesn't need to treat them specially. Eg, the situation would typically go along the lines of:
Vandal: I ownzor your page!
Editor 1: Revert.
Vandal: I ownzor your page!
Editor 2: Revert.
Vandal: I ownzor your page!
Editor 3: Revert.
Vandal: I ownzor your page!
Admin: Block (reason=vandalism)
My concern in putting vandalism into the 3RR is that non-admins sometimes mis-construe "vandalism" as "stuff I hate". They might then be mislead into multi-reverting some good faith but incorrect edit that they considered vandalism, and end up getting blocked. If we just tell folks to stick to the 3RR, then the issue doesn't arise. Martin 03:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Martin, consider this situation:
Vandal: I ownzor your page!
Editor 1: Revert.
Vandal: I ownzor your page!
Editor 1: Revert.
Vandal: I ownzor your page!
Editor 1: Revert.
Vandal: I ownzor your page!
Admin: Block Editor 1 (reason=violation of 3RR)
Admin: Block Vandal (reason=violation of 3RR and vandalism)
Shouldn't "Editor 1" have some protection aganist the hypothetical "Admin" who dislikes him? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:29, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
"Editor 1" need simply to refrain from making the fourth revert, and instead list the page on "vandalism in progess". Then there is no risk of being temp-blocked by an admin with poor judgement. Martin 03:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd support this with the qualifier: "...except in the case where the reverts were made by anonymous users." Though there really should be a sockpuppet exception too (but coding what is an "obvious sockpuppet" might make things too complicated). "Vandals are already blockable", as someone said above, but anonymous vandals can be very difficult to effectively block. anthony 警告

[edit] Spirit vs. letter of the 3RR

One thing I've noticed recently is certain POV warriors adding a spelling fix or some other trivial change to the revert, so that it's not technically a revert, but with the same net effect. It might be worth allowing a bit of discretion to blocking, so that the determined don't all start exploiting the loophole and make edit histories even tougher to follow; say, it's a revert if any additional changes would by themselves would be a "minor change". Stan 03:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there's precedent for admins using their common sense on such details in the case of Wik, when Eloquence blocked Wik for this kinda thing. Again, we can tweak the 3RR itself to make this explicit, if it's necessary. Martin 03:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
At some point need to trust the sysops to use their judgment and common sense. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:36, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Alas, we have some users who don't trust admins to use their judgment, so I think we will have to make it explicit, so that said users don't have a club to beat admins over the head with. Noel (talk) 05:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would go farther: if it's clearly restoring the same disputed element of the text, it's a revert, even if it's also accompanied by other changes, minor or not. I've seen someone restore the same heavily disputed text to an article three times in twenty-four hours, then rip the entire section out of the article and split it off into an article of its own so that he could reinsert the disputed sentence -- and then loudly claim that no sir, he was clearly in no way in violation of the 3RR, because even though he'd made four changes that had the effect of a revert, they weren't really reverts... -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mixing reverts and significant edit

What should be done with an editor who mixes reverts with other significant (not minor, as above) edits? Jayjg 03:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any comments? I'm faced with exactly this situation. Jayjg 11:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You need to go to RfC, Jayjg, don't you think? Your situation simply isn't covered by this policy. To be honest, I think this policy will be useless, because a truly determined troll/POV pusher will simply edit rather than revert and force the "good guys" to do the reverting.Dr Zen 12:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, RfC. That's never been very effective in my experience. Jayjg 17:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's a means to enlist support, Jayjg. If you're not managing to get the support, perhaps you need to draw a conclusion from that.Dr Zen 22:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, when I tried one I was able to enlist plenty of support. And the individual under RfC was able to enlist some support as well. And then what? Nothing. Other RfCs I've seen have been much the same. Jayjg 00:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, perhaps your view was not accepted by enough people to meet a consensus. What do you suggest should be done?Dr Zen 00:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To begin with, consensus is when all people agree to support an action or position. If 15 people support your position, and 5 do not, then there is no consensus, even though you have majority support. Secondly, as VeryVerily correctly points out in his comment,RfC's generally accomplish nothing. Everybody blows off steam, and then nothing happens, and everyone who took part walks away frustrated. Since there are no consequences, the parties concerned are free to continute their behaviour regardless of the outcome. In contentious situations, particularly with partisans on both sides, RfCs appear to be a time-consuming formality whose only purpose is to allow the possibility of a future RfAR. Jayjg 18:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
RfC's generally accomplish nothing. Everybody blows off steam, and then nothing happens, and everyone who took part walks away frustrated. VeryVerily 09:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this policy would apply directly to that situation. You'd have to take it through the dispute resolution process. That's not very encouraging, I know. On the other hand, I don't think this proposal would make the situation worse for you than it already is. If someone is making significant edits, that's going to slow them down, compared to someone just repeatedly flat-reverting. Martin 15:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] An alternative proposal

One of the main reasons for reversion at the moment is that reverting has less cost associated with it than editing does. A better way of handling this might be to build a rule into the software which makes over-editing "costly".

For instance, if we change the software so that no IP address can edit a single article more than, say, five times in twenty-four hours without causing itself to be blocked for eight hours, this would sort out the multiple revert issue, even in the case where minor changes were made so that people could claim that they were not reverting. It would also make people more likely to use preview before saving changes in order to avoid editing an article for more than the quota. The system could be made to operate so that signed in editors were only blocked for a couple of hours in order to give them an advantage over anonymous vandals.

This proposal would make revert wars much less attractive than they currently are but would also make all kinds of edit war less attractive. It would also avoid putting the added burden of blocking on administrators with the resultant ill-feeling which the current proposal entails. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:22, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Uh, you want to block people just for working on an article a lot? Everyking 05:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not really. I'm just saying that people generally only work on an article a lot when they're involved in an edit war. We could set the software so that multiple edits by one person without any intervening edit by another person are counted as a single edit since the nature of an edit war is that one person edits then another does so. That would rule out most cases where one person racks up a lot of edits on an article without being involved in an edit war. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:03, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

I think that sort of thing is a treatment worse than the ailment. I made 19 edits to one article earlier tonight, and here's the difference. You think I ought to be blocked for that? Granted, there were no intervening edits, which you say is a mitigating factor, but if there had been, I'd be blocked. Everyking 06:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. I am sure that if you were aware that such a rule existed you would have organised your work to take place in larger chunks and that once you had made your fourth change, you would switch to editing some other article tonight, finishing the original article tomorrow if necessary.

In any case even if there had been three separate groups of intervening edits by someone else, your edit stint on that article tonight would only have counted as four edits using the modified rule above. And generally when someone does a major but uncontroversial edit in parts as you have just done, others avoid editing until they are finished, so as a result the alternative proposal would have little effect on uncontroversial articles. Controversial edits are another matter of course but they should be edited more slowly in any case because of the need for discussion and agreement on the talk page for the article. Of course when there is no discussion on the talk page that is where the current Three Revert Rule begins to come into play anyway and where this automated system would have most effect.

One other concern might be that this proposal would affect co-operative editing where two or more people agree to work on an article concurrently but again this could dealt with by checking to see whether edits affect the same part of the article or different parts. Lastly there could be some effect on talk pages where discussion takes quite a few edits. To answer this concern the simplest answer would be to exemept talk pages from the proposal. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:15, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

I don't really like the idea that people should work around the software blocking them from editing the article. I also think that causing inconvenience for genuine editors due to a few bad eggs is poor policy. Shane King 08:39, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Right, and protecting George W. Bush doesn't "caus[e] inconvenience for genuine editors due to a few bad eggs"? ugen64 20:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't get your point. I support the original proposal, which I believe will cause the bad eggs to be banned rather than having to protect the page. I was against Derek's alternative proposal. Shane King 00:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I save often. This is a bad idea. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:44, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea. It would make pages for rapidly changing events like 2004 U.S. election in progress impossible. It also forces some people to change their good editing habits. Things like making changes a section at a time to save potential merge conflicts become a bad thing. Steven jones 02:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that this isn't going down too well. It was only a suggestion but I think that it's still worth defending. I believe that the point that ugen64 was trying to make is that the current method of handling edit wars also causes inconvenience to users. We could certainly argue whether my alternative causes more or less. I'll expand on why I think it will cause less below. As for the point made by Neutrality and Steve Jones, well, like them I tend to save little and often so I want to make sure that this proposal doesn't affect me or them more than other editors who tend to save large chunks. I think that I have managed to suggest a method: ie counting a group of edits (one section at a time or whatever) as one edit in the way that I have described above since this will mean that one can spend a whole evening on an article doing a lot of modifications to it, large or small, without coming near the limit. Rapidly changing events certainly wouldn't become impossible even if several people were working on them since each editor would be able to make, not just five edits, but five groups of edits per day and that could be a very large number of edits.

Now as to why it should cause less inconvenience to users than the current system. Let's look at inconvenience currently caused to editors -- and to Wikipedia -- by the current system.

  • Frustration is caused by edit warring.
  • Pages have to be protected preventing users from editing even typos and grammar issues.
  • Editors with admin privileges have to manually protect and unprotect pages, block and unblock users with the concomitant accusations of personal bias, referrals to RfC and RfAr, etc., threats of one kind and another, etc., which, even when the unjustified accusations are thrown out, has lead to the loss of many good editors (the latest of which is Mintguy).
  • Pages can revert so quickly that general readers can't make use of the page they want.

The enforcement proposal on which we are voting (which is really just firming up the current policy) will probably increase the incidence of the latter although it will with any luck cut down on the former two a bit.

Now the inconvenience caused by my proposal has already been mentioned above but I want to remind people that it will only really affect an article which is being edited co-operatively by two or more editors turn about within a 24hr period. In that case the editors would have to be careful in order to avoid being blocked. Note that the vast majority of articles are not developed in this fashion though, so in my opinion it's not a serious inconvenience.

But let's forget about inconvenience for a minute and talk about benefits. The main benefit of my proposal is that it would take a load off the shoulders of administrators. Firstly they would no longer need to deal manually with the sort of high speed revert warring which can make an article unusable by the general public. Secondly the accusations and personal vendettas against admins which often accompany the blocking of edit warriors and vandals would be considerably reduced, if not eliminated, since blocking would be "self-inflicted" rather than the result of "the cabal" or whoever. I would hope that this would reduce the burnout which many committed administrators have experienced (since before there were "official" administrators in fact). This is a benefit which neither the current system nor the enforcement proposal can deliver. -- 68.147.166.51 02:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) (otherwise known as Derek Ross | Talk 02:58, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC))

I was thinking of something like this, and I really like your proposal. To allow for pages that need lots of quick editing, this feature could be able to be turned off for specific pages by administrators(and turned on again if the pages turn into edit wars). This feature helps take some of the weight off of admins, and should not un-duly burden good users if implemented properly(i.e. with edit grouping, and a sufficiently high number of edits, and other tweaks...) JesseW 04:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I could perhaps support it if it worked this way: If making the edit would cause you to hit the limit, it should give you the option to make it anyway (causing you to be blocked from editing that article only for the next 24 hours), or cancel your attempt to edit. Shane King 06:54, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I'm not stuck on the exact details of how it works and a "fair warning" would fit into it Just Fine. The important points are that it should be automatic and that it should make edit wars difficult while having little or no impact on day-to-day editing. I'm sure that it could be tuned to block the user from editing the offending article rather than the whole site. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:13, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Yes, making it block per page is also a good idea. I had the thought that serious pov warriors would just start using massive sockpuppeting to get around this, but, the proposal would still require the use of many more sock puppets, and it would make their use somewhat more visible(i.e. if a newly created user suddenly started reverting something that the previous one had run up against the limit on, that would be more obvious than the way it is now, where sockpuppets just create confusion and can mess up votes. Derek(or someone else), we should form this up into a more clear proposal on a seperate page(maybe after this vote is over), and eventually present it to the MediaWiki people as a feature request. JesseW 07:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We'd need to work out whether it applies to talk pages too: the idea is to try to send people to talk pages rather than edit warring, so having a limit to the amount of discussion that could take place on talk pages would be unhelpful I think. Also other pages need the ability to make multiple edits, eg some of the pages in the Wikipedia namespace where voting and other discussion occurs. Maybe it should be off by default on everything but the main namespace? There's a fair bit of detail to sort out before it can be made into a proposal. Shane King 07:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Completely agree, guys. I had already considered the talk page issue and thought that this proposal should be used on the main namespace only to avoid messing up other activity. However as JesseW says it would be a good idea to move this discussion to a more appropriate place to thrash out some details, if enough people think that it's worth pursuing. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:20, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification before I vote

I have a question: if a revert war happens and the page needs to be blocked, should hte material that was removed be readded, or should it be taken out and put on the talk page for it to be discussed.

How long should the revert stay for? How can the other party put their side forth properly and allow for a compromise, or show that the other party was wrong to make the changes they did? How will we guarantee fairness?

I say this because a good example is looming at Exploding whale - Mikkalai keeps taking away the phrase ", who described himself as a "land-blubber" and reported that "the blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds."" because he says its "bragging", though it isn't. I don't think Mikkalai understands bragging, and I don't think he's watched the video because it was just straight (humorous) reporting! I've taken it to the talk page, but lets say I get reverted again without the user talking, should he be allowed to get away with that?

Why not just make a policy that says that the initiator of the original edit must justify his edits, and the reverter must take to the talk page as soon as they do the revert? Wouldn't that fix a lot of problems? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the page needs to be blocked
pages are protected. People are blocked. Which are you referring to?
Sorry, I meant that. Brainfart :) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How can the other party put their side forth properly and allow for a compromise
You can always compromise by editing the page to a compromise version between your preferred version, and the version you do not prefer. Such good faith attempts to compromise would not count as reverts, because they are not reverts.
or show that the other party was wrong to make the changes they did?
The Talk page is a good place to show that the other party was wrong. Martin 14:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, let's see how well this works. I have been reverted 4 times by User:Mikkalai. I beleive I have shown him to be wrong on Talk:Exploding whale (how can a reporter report that the "blast blasted blubber beyond all beleivable bounds" before the event happened? This is part of Mikkalai's argument), I have left several message on his talk page and I have tried to clarify my statement. Mikkalai has decided (regrettably) to just revert without any attempt at compromise, has stated that he is "Reverting nonsense again" (very impolite) and has called my contribution a "paparazzi-style report". So, I haven't reverted him. I've taken him to WP:RFC. I guess we'll see how well the process works soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What a user should do in that case is wait a day, and then come back to it. If his edits are correct, it's likely that someone else will instate his changes in his absence. (If no one does, it may be because the consensus is against him.) The bottom line is, waiting a day should be no big deal. It's not like something terrible will happen if incorrect information stays on Wikipedia for 24 hours. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:22, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed modification

If you violate the three revert rule, the following procedures apply:
(a) If the user has not reverted a fifth time, a sysop should warn that user that any further reverts in breach of the rule will result in a 24 hour ban. This is subject to (c) below.
(b) If the user reverts for a fifth time in a 24 hour period (as defined in the three revert rule), a sysop should block that user for 24 hours.
(c) If a user persistently breaches the rule, and has been warned about the persistency of those breaches, a sysop should block that user for 24 hours on any further breach of the rule.
(d) In the cases where more than one party violates the rule, sysops should apply the provisions stated above to both sides.

(Remember, the three revert rule says don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.)

I propose the above modification. It allows for accidental reverts and makes it clear that all users should be treated equally. It also reduces the reliance on sysop discretion (which is beneficial since sysop discretion could be seen as taking sides in a dispute). jguk 13:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this is broadly good advice, and I believe sysops with good judgement will certainly take it on board. It is the sort of advice that we might add to wikipedia:three revert rule if the motion passes. Martin 15:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, please not. I can't see much sense in defining ever more specifics and exceptions. It would not help to have sysops carry an instruction book wherever they go. There will always be a troll who finds some inconsistency in the rules only to blame a sysop who violates some little-known exception or peculiarity. What then, inflate the instruction book some more? What matters is judgement, common sense, experience, and good will, not blind obeyance of ever more detailed bureaucratic procedures. Kosebamse 19:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
AOL, or, as is proper in more refined circles: well said, sir. JRM 12:02, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
Heh. There was a reason I said "advice" rather than "instructions", or "bureaucratic procedures". Martin 16:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mobbing

As I have noted on WikiEN and stating here for the record, I am concerned about mob-like behaviour vis a vis the 3RR. If one edit warrior is up against 2-3 others, this poor soul will be banned before the others as they will not meet the 3RR except collectively.

Proposals:

  • Do not ban a revert warrior if he's up against several others.
  • Be prepared to ban those who incite reverts, even if those are not technically meeting the 3RR.
  • Be prepared to ban gangs of revert warriors if they collectively push one particular version of an article, even if the 3RR is not yet met. JFW | T@lk 19:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem is not an editor's reverting three times but the whole "warrior" mentality that impels some editors to battle over pages. On Clitoris editors have written that they will die before they stop reverting edits! Once someone has placed this kind of language in an edit summary, they need their boots cooled.Dr Zen 22:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you're the lone ranger up against a group of others, sometimes you should ask yourself why. Sure, there are exceptions, but generally the one against many scenario comes about because the person on their own is the POV pusher. Shane King 00:10, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
I daresay, Shane, but that was far from the point I was making. I'm saying that whether you are the one or the many, once you have become intemperate, you are adding nothing. In any case, sometimes the POV pushers are well organised. You might recall with SkyOS that one guy was up against several until other users noticed and joined his side. The several were all closely involved in the OS that is the subject of the article. I think that editors should be reminded often that working on subjects that they are very close to makes it impossible for them to be objective. Not to say they shouldn't work on things that they know a lot about, but they must be more careful of how they interact with others, I think.Dr Zen 00:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see the comment was made by two people, I was replying more to Jfdwolff than you I guess. I agree the problem is the warrior mentality. I think that 24 hours to calm down can help that. I guess we have to wait and see how things end up working out. Shane King 01:25, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think being in the minority of the reverters makes you more or less likely to be right. This is why Wikipedia runs on consensus, not majority rule. However, in 99% of cases, reverting more than once in a day won't accomplish anything. In fact, with regard to articles I'd say it's pretty much never necessary to be in a high speed revert war. The article will still be there in 24 hours.

I forsee the biggest problem with the revert wars in the cases of talk pages (and discussion pages like VFD). In these cases it almost never makes sense to revert in the first place (unless it's to restore something which someone else removed). anthony 警告 00:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, with regard to articles, I think we need to focus on getting discussions in place rather than on avoiding revert wars. But I suppose once we get a revert rule in place we can turn our attention to this. Adding guidelines against inciting revert wars and ganging up on others when there is no clear consensus would be a good start. After this vote is over (and it seems like it will pass), I'll add these two guidelines (unless someone objects to them). anthony 警告 00:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Often the people who are in revert wars are the same people who refuse to discuss things on talk pages. In other words, they're the barrier to getting discussion in place. If blocking them means reasonable discussion can take place, I'm all for it. Maybe blocking them will also get it through to them how anti-social their behaviour is.
Also, we're not just talking small majorities here, I mean it's often half a dozen people or more people against one. That's a consensus in the sense wikipedia uses the word: you don't need 100% agreement to say consensus has been reached. One hardcore POV holdold doesn't stop consensus being reached, and they shouldn't be allowed to cause trouble be repeatedly reverting even though their position has been widely discredited. Shane King 01:25, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Often the people who are in revert wars are the same people who refuse to discuss things on talk pages. Sure, but blocking them means they're definitely not going to discuss anything on the talk page, at least not for 24-hours. There is probably a correlation between those who don't participate on talk pages and those who break the 3RR. But not a very high correlation, and I see no reason to believe that a 3RR will change this. Personally I used to break the 3RR all the time, and I mainly did it when the person reverting me refused to respond to my comments on the talk page. So I really don't see how this is going to change things.
If it's half a dozen people against one I don't think you need a 3RR rule to enforce things. Going against consensus, now there's a rule that makes sense. Start an RFC, or throw up a quick straw poll. When it's obvious that there is consensus against the changes and the user continues she will probably be blocked. If it happens on a number of different pages the arb committee will almost surely impose a long term ban. But reverting four times in a day when it's 2 against 1 or 5 against 3, or even 1 against 1 against 1 against 1, that's clearly banned by this rule, and it shouldn't be. Reversions are a technical problem, and they should be resolved in a technical way. Stop making revert wars fill up the history. Don't store multiple copies of the same revert in the database. Don't let reverts fill up recent changes (or change the rule to 4 reverts in an hour, that's slow enough it won't even be noticed in recent changes). The social problem is people who refuse to discuss their changes, or make edits which are POV or clearly against consensus. That's what we should be blocking people for, not for just reverting too many times.
But again, I don't see very much harm in this rule, and if it makes it the real problem more clear then it's probably a good thing. anthony 警告 02:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Major points

Let me reiterate some major points here which I think need to be answered:

  • Sockpuppets. Is reverting a sockpuppet an exception? Are reverts by a sockpuppet blockworthy, and if so who judges?
  • Near reverts. Someone doesn't actually revert but makes other minor changes. Or major changes. Or a rewrite, based on their version. Or maybe they're offering a halfway compromise, which is interpreted as a near revert.
  • Own user space. I think one's own user pages should be an exception. Often vandalized, often repeatedly, often anonymously.
  • Talk pages. Do they count? A troll recently kept deleting my comments from a talk page.
  • Admin judgement. We didn't allow all admins to become bureaucrats for good reason, we don't and shouldn't wholly trust them. Same goes for giving power to decide banworthiness of regular, signed-in users in unclear cases.
  • IPs. Especially dynamic ones. You could go through a dozen without breaking a sweat. Or a dozen AOL'ers are on at once. Who's to say?
  • Other issues: Vandalism, stalking, ban enforcement, Wikipedia policy/newcomer pages, self-reverts as one revert or zero or negative one, corollary lack of clarity as to what is prohibited.

VeryVerily 02:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd add three more:

  • Reverts of completely different content. If one person vandalises an article and you use up your three reverts, then the next day (say 12 hours later) someone else vandalises the same article, do you get three more reverts?
  • Voting pages, nomination pages. What if someone repeatedly deletes a vote or nomination you've made? Similar to the question over talk pages, but extended to certain Wikipedia pages.
  • Along with vandalism, what about copyright violations and other illegal edits? What about edits made by banned (but not blocked) users? What about personal attacks?

Personally, as far as article pages, I'd like to see some sort of policy favoring removal of disputed content, and as far as talk pages and meta pages which are really discussion pages (like VFD or VFA) the policy should favor inclusion of disputed content (if someone insists on making a sockpuppet vote, just note that you think this vote is a sockpuppet rather than revert warring over removing the vote). With user pages and user talk pages, policy should favor the user whose page is in question. As I've said above, though, perhaps we can start working on this after we put a hard ban on four reverts in a day. anthony 警告 03:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] First we should clarify the 3-revert rule

In principle, I think this is a good idea, but we need to clarify the 3-revert rule before we make it a basis for banning. If I'm defending the page Jew from an anti-Semitic vandal who keeps changing his/her IP address, I don't want this to be a bannable offense. And if one party — possibly anonymous — is refusing to discuss things on the talk page, just what is the other party supposed to do? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:46, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns

It looks like this will probably pass, despite my opposing vote, but I have serious concerns about it. In the past, I always thought the three revert rule didn't apply to vandalism. In fact, I thought if I needed to revert a page 10 times in a day to protect it from vandalism, people would be glad that I did so. But now, reading about this enforcement, it seems like vandalism is not exempted, and I'm supposed to go to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and complain instead of simply reverting? Is that right? Because I'm sure not going to do that; that's absurd. I have a rollback button, why should I sit around waiting for someone else to revert a page when I can do it myself? The idea that I might be blocked for 24 hours by another sysop for reverting vandalism is so offensive to me that I think I might leave the project if it were to actually happen. Everyking 05:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But can you accept that while someone who wipes a page and puts "George Bush is a tosser" in its place is clearly a vandal, there are others who make, let's say, provocative edits and are also labelled vandals? Should you have the unfettered right to revert them just because you're a sysop? Do you see how an admin who particularly wants a page a particular way could fend off three or four editors by claiming each was a vandal and reverting them three times each? What would prevent that if you are to be given an exemption? I think the policy is a trolls' charter, to be honest, for more or less exactly the reason you give but I think that if you allow "vandalism" to be reverted endlessly, all that will happen is that the battle will shift to one over who is and who is not a vandal.Dr Zen 05:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree entirely. Perhaps a good addition would be to have some sort of "lower court" system for these types of issues. We could set up a pool of interested and trusted users who would act as a mini-arb committee for issues which need quicker resolution. Any disputed blocks based on the three revert rule could be immediately sent to a three-user panel of currently available users in the pool. These decisions could be appealed to the arb committee, of course. The only problem I see is how to randomly select three available users from the pool. anthony 警告 16:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't see that ending in anything other than more bureaucracy.Dr Zen 04:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not if we elect them. anthony 警告 07:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Can't decide, so no.

If I need to revert a vandal, I'll block the page after the second revert.

If there are a bunch of vandals, then I have to go around rolling back like mad. I don't want to have to keep track of which page I have rolled back once, twice, or three times.

The alternative is not to worry about vandals and let others do that. This is just shifting the problem around.

So I don't know what the solution is. To me, this seems like a band-aid. I suppose this would not happen if pages were blocked more often. Christopher Mahan 19:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC).

You shouldn't block a page after a second revert. Protecting pages is considered harmful and against the spirit of a wiki. It stops genuine editors from accessing the article and stops the article from developing and improving. jguk 19:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
IMO a side effect if this proposal passes will be that blocks of users and page protections will become much more common. As an admin I am sometimes pateint, and will put notices and wanings a few times on the talk page of an anon ip#, giving them the benifit of a doubt that they are just a newbie playing around rather than a malicious vandal. If reverting their bad edits more than twice is removed from the tool chest of admins, expect them to be using the other tools they have more frequently. -- Infrogmation 18:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing's perfect, but the proposal is good

The 3RR rule and this proposal might be imperfect. But maybe no perfect way is possible. Life is a series of trade-offs. In my view, several of the alternatives proposed are too complicated, although it's possible to have refinements about clear vandalism. And about accidentally going over the limit, what is the harm in 24 hours away from Wikipedia? Maurreen 18:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What does 'equally' mean?

Since the proposal gives sysops complete discretion on whether to apply a ban, and if so for how long (up to 24 hours), it's fair to ask what is meant by 'equally'. Suppose the 2 sides to a revert war are a vandal with form and the other a newbie, say, or a long-time sysop. Does 'equally' mean we consider each party in turn (together with their history and background) so that one party may get banned and the other not. Or does 'equally' mean - if the sysop thinks the vandal deserves to be banned for 24 hours, then the other party must (regardless of any other considerations) be banned for 24 hours too? jguk 22:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandals may be blocked for vandalism, and this proposal will not change that. If someone blocks a vandal who has reverted to a vandalized version four times, I don't think this rule will require anyone to block the veteran sysop who rolled back the vandalism five times: the vandal isn't being blocked for excessive reverting, but for clear and obvious vandalism—page blanking, say, or announcements that Josh is teh gat homofag. —No-One Jones (m) 22:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, answer this: given that there is already the means to block these vandals without reference to the 3Rs rule, and that you do not expect it to apply to sysops, surely it's only intended, in your view, to be used by sysops against users they describe as vandals? We all know that there are two problems here: vandalism, in which a surfer, overexcited by the idea that they can do what they like to a page, does what they like to a page; and edit wars, in which editors who are keen on a particular POV -- which includes admins -- revert one another instead of discussing their edits. In the latter case, my view is that anyone who reverts three times in a day is a "vandal" but I doubt that that opinion will be shared by many admins.Dr Zen 01:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I used a sysop as an example but it could apply equally to anyone reverting clear and obvious vandalism. If an admin blocks someone for edit warring but gives "vandalism" as the reason for the block, thus evading his responsibility to block the other edit warrior, I'll be the first (though not, I suspect, the last) to cry for desysopping. I think admins are responsible enough to know the difference between vandalism and POV editing, and if they don't, they shouldn't be admins. —No-One Jones (m) 03:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It cannot "equally" apply to anyone reverting vandalism, Mirv, because not anyone can employ this rule to block users they do not like. The problem is that this rule simply isn't needed to block the first kind of vandal, because they can already be blocked, and the second kind is far too subjective a call. We are not disputing the rectitude of banning someone who reverts the friend of a gay (that should not happen) but that of banning someone who is involved in POV editing by claiming they are a vandal. I agree that something should be done to fix the latter problem but I doubt this is the right cure.Dr Zen 04:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have confidence in the ability of sysops to distinguish between genuine vandal-fighting and POV wars, and I have confidence in the ability of the arbcom to deal with sysop abuses if they should arise. The definition of "vandalism" makes it clear that POV editing is emphatically not vandalism, and it will therefore be clear if a sysop should block a POV warrior under a false pretense of "vandalism". As long as this is the case, I don't foresee sysops abuses being a problem. —No-One Jones (m) 05:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I want to say that if this passes, I will change nothing about anything I do, because I think it's a total injustice. I refuse to simply allow vandalism to stand just because I've run out of reverts and the vandal doesn't care and has shifting IPs or whatever. So you can all watch my contributions and get ready to block me the fourth time I revert someone writing that so-and-so is gay, and then we can all agree that our rules have overpowered our brains. Everyking 03:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I had to revert vandalism on John McCain five times just now. Pretty soon, I suppose, doing that will get me blocked for 24 hours. Let it get to three reverts and then throw up my hands and let it say "poo" for however long it takes for someone else to notice it, I suppose that's what I should do. Dealing with vandalism is exasperating enough as it is, but now I'm supposed to tolerate it? Everyking 04:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There's a process for calling for support when vandalism is in progress. If you are not an admin, you can call for one to block the vandal. I'm sure you wouldn't have to wait too long if you put a request on the VIP page. That's not to say that I don't sympathise with you. I do. But there is a way prescribed.Dr Zen 05:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am an admin, but I don't like to block people, especially IPs (although I did eventually do it in the above mentioned case), and besides, it's utterly absurd that I should have to go complaining on VIP when I can revert it myself. Everyking 05:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Any one page?

Please see my question on Wikipedia_talk:Three_revert_rule#Any_.27.27one.27.27_page.3F. I'd like to understand this particular before I vote. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 14:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I've been complaining about this for a while, but no one seems to take my concerns seriously. So, if we aren't going to amend the proposal to specifically exclude vandalism, I'd like to ask every admin to make a personal pledge not to block anyone for reverting vandalism. Otherwise there's no way I can feel comfortable about reverting it, and I'm sure there are others who feel the same way. So I'm making my own pledge not to block anyone for reverting vandalism, even if they do it 100 times. Will anyone else make the same pledge? I think I may also start voting against admin candidates who won't make such a pledge. Everyking 13:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you just revert 3 times, and then alert others about it, like via ViP. Whats the big deal? I strongly oppose any such caveat, due to concerns about non-vandalism being reverted 100 times by overzealous sysops. I furthermore suggest that any sysop taking such a pledge to disobey policy be de-sysoped. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Now I'm being told not just that I'll be blocked for 24 hours for reverting vandalism, but that I should be desysoped for it, too! I feel like I'm in some kind of alternate dimension. Everyking 21:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you the truth, if this gets passed without an amendment and without sysops making the above pledge, I'm gone. I won't stay with a project that punishes people who fight vandalism. I can't do that, I could never live with it. Even now it's hard for me to work up the motivation to make contributions because I know it's just a matter of time. For me to be told that my reward for the numerous hours I spend here every day will be repeated blocking, that is just an insult beyond anything I can tolerate or even comprehend. Everyking 00:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can identify with that last sentence (sorry, off topic). VeryVerily 06:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#3RR_enforcement - Jimbo has said that, in his opinion, the 3RR doesn't apply to "simple vandalism". Of course we will have to be careful that no admin uses "vandalism" to refer to "an edit I don't like" - but in general, I think we all agree on what simple vandalism is and can agree that the 3RR just doesn't apply in this case. (It's also similar to the convention that you can protect a page from simple vandalism, even if you have been reverting - while in other situations you shouldn't protect if you are already involved in the dispute) -- sannse (talk) 13:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've just read more and seen that he has edited WP:3RR to reflect this -- sannse (talk) 13:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll take that pledge, which basically means inaction, and we've never had any policy about *not* doing something, so I'd like to see someone de-oped for that. You can put me on first. I've reverted Wikipedia:About many times in the past, we can't lock that page according to some, and it's not vandalised by only a single person. I'd rather revert when I see it, than let it stand until someone else gets around to it, and I don't feel like posting a message every time I see a vandalism but I can't revert. If someone wants to block me, that's fine, I can deal with some vacation. Dori | Talk 13:31, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I pledge never to block a user for too many reverts of edits that were genuine vandalism. Of course, if an edit war is over POV, and someone starts screaming "VANDALISM" in order to avoid the three-revert rule, then they can expect the hand of justice to be swift and terrible. —No-One Jones (m) 23:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but are the other 300 odd sysops going to give the same pledge? jguk 00:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Moreover, Mirv's "swift and terrible" justice may be sprung arbitrarily, as no one will agree on what constitutes vandalism. Blanking the whole article? Sure. Blanking part of an article? Some users do that for some quasi-legimitate reason, some are just wrecking the article. Who is a vandal? VeryVerily 06:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad that Jimbo edited the policy page to reflect the understanding regarding vandalism, and accordingly I see no reason not to mention that here on the enforcement poll as well, so we'll all be clear that vandalism is exempt and no one can be blocked for reverting it any number of times. So I added a brief mention of it to the top. We don't need to get into fuzzy definitions of vandalism, in my opinion—clear vandalism, as I wrote it, should refer simply to destructive page blanking, adding profanity or nonsense, or anything that is uncontroversially considered vandalism. Everyking 07:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would be highly unlikely to block someone for reverting vandalism multiple times.
However, I want to be clear that getting in an intense revert war with a pure vandal is not a good thing to do. Instead, the recommended action should be to protect the page, block the account, and/or take it to "vandalism in progress".
As I have said before, my concern in putting vandalism into the 3RR is that non-admins sometimes mis-construe "vandalism" as "stuff I hate". They might then be mislead into multi-reverting some good faith but incorrect edit that they considered vandalism, and end up getting blocked. If we just tell folks to stick to the 3RR, then the issue doesn't arise. Martin 16:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It should be obvious, but I strongly agree w Martin. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 19:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That one sysop says he'd be unlikely to block someone for reverting vandalism just isn't good enough. Users need to be protected by the letter of the law, not just the spirit. People can claim things that aren't vandalism to be vandalism if they want, but that shouldn't spare them, because here we are speaking of clear vandalism, things uncontroversially considered vandalism. If somebody reverts more than three times in doing that, they can, of course, be blocked—not that I think they necessarily should, but if that's community consensus, I have no objections. But there are two problems with not including a mention of vandalism in the enforcement poll: sysops will be able to block people for reverting vandals, even if they ordinarily wouldn't, if, say, they dislike the person who is doing it; and also, people should feel absolutely free and encouraged to revert vandalism, even if they aren't sysops with the power to block or protect, and they shouldn't be left wondering if they are violating some rule. Everyking 19:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A sysop who obeys the letter of the law, but consistently demonstrates poor judgement as to the spirit of the law, will in due course be de-sysoped. Martin 01:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Has this ever happened? VeryVerily 03:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, if it were so I think it would be a bad thing, but I don't really even think that's so. It would be a bad thing, though. We'd be a mess if we had policies that meant sysops could be desysoped even though they obeyed the rules and meant people who reverted vandalism were technically breaking the rules. Everyking 01:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the context of this discussion, I would like to remind everyone that there are some users that can't be blocked (such as those who use AOL proxies, and those vandals smart enough to log in and made a few good edits before engaging in vandalism), and there are some vandalism patterns where protection is unhelpful in stopping the vandalism. These have, in the past, included pages in the Wikipedia space, as well as editing patterns where the vandal simply moves on to another page when protection is used. I am pleased to see that an exception for vandalism is being written into the 3rr and hope that this will be interpreted broadly. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing the problem of protecting quality work

I suggest that enforcing the three-revert-rule provides a means of merely slowing the dysfunctional behavior of some editors.  :)) In addition to the three-revert-rule, I suggest that we need a formal means of protecting collaborative editors from those who repeatedly make destructive edits, time-consuming frivolous proposals, and unreasonable demands. These destructive edits are the root cause of the revert wars in the first place. Let's simply defuse the cause of the revert wars; let's separate the rival gangs! In making this argument for developing a formal mechanism to protect collaborative editors, I will refer to the HistoryFiles of the following pages Creation vs. evolution debate, Creation according to Genesis, and a /temp page that serves as a living example of the protective environment for collaborative work that I propose. ---Rednblu | Talk 11:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Statement of the problem. Please allow me to characterize the dysfunctional pattern in the Creation vs. evolution debate and Creation according to Genesis pages. I will attempt to make this characterization without laying blame on my opponents. :)) In my opinion, in those pages there are two coalitions of editors. Each side considers the other to be editors who have no interest in NPOV, quality writing, or intellectual discourse. Let me call this gang, "Them" Each side considers themselves to be editors who enjoy the challenge of putting together a 32K Wikipedia page that is accurate, informative, and NPOV. Let me call this gang, "Us" In the following discussion, I will allow the possibility that an uninvolved third-party might say that Rednblu and his coalition clearly are "Group A" 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 13:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you not think that "The Masters of Quality" and "The Destroyers" are highly POV and vain titles for each group?. CheeseDreams 16:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have renamed the POV titles throughout this discussion - in accordance with the policy that states talk pages may be edited to remove offensive comments. CheeseDreams 16:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • As always, the uncensored proposal can be found here. I bet that every time someone reverted my edit for the third time, he thought he was the "Master of Quality" and I was the "Destroyer." That is why he reverted again and again. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I bet the opposite.CheeseDreams 00:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed solution. My interest in this discussion is to propose a formal Wikipedia mechanism for protecting both coalitions from the destructive aggression of the opposing coalition. Can it be done? I think so. I suggest that the two paired pages Creation vs. evolution debate and /temp illustrate a mechanism that would allow both the "Group A" and the "Group B" to develop competing pages that then would be submitted for comparison in Wikipedia-wide vote to select the winner that should appear on the public page. For example, a regular section of the Wikipedia:Current_polls could be "Which competing page should be moved to production?" ---Rednblu | Talk 13:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requirement for a formal solution. The history files of the debate, Genesis, and /temp pages illustrate why a formal Wikipedia policy mechanism is required. Simply said, one group alledge that the other has an interest only in destroying quality work, use every frivolous distortion of Wikipedia policy, VfD process, Move to Wiktionary, Move to WikiQuote, and POV-EditWar-controversy-SpeedyDelete CategoryTag that they can invent or misuse to destroy and disrupt the production of quality Wikipedia pages, including whatever informal mechanisms that can be invented or imitated from previous informal approaches. Hence, there should be a formal Wikipedia policy statement and formal implementation mechanism that any party could invoke to establish a /temp page for protected work of the collaborative editors who are interested in developing accurate, informative, and NPOV pages for Wikipedia. ---Rednblu | Talk 13:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Superior efficiency of separation of the gangs. The establishment of a /temp page from which the rival gang is excluded is quite efficient--much more efficient than trying to use disciplinary procedures, such as mediation, arbitration, or banning to alter behavior to force the two gangs to work harmoniously on the same turf! 8)) After all, any self-respecting member of the "Other" gang gets as much of a kick out of destroying the mediation, arbitration, and banning process as they do out of destroying Wikipedia pages. :)) Do you really think the "Others" could get one of their persuasion elected to the Arbitration Committee? 8(( There is not one whip-lash of discipline against the "Others" in those processes. The efficient approach is to separate the "Others" gang from the "Us" gang. And the collaborative editors should be able to evict from the /temp page any disruptive editor that they choose. Forget all the nuances of trying to outwit the "Others" and their stretching the three-revert-rule to its limit! Simply establish a /temp page from which the "Others" are excluded. The rule to enforce would be simple: Only those selected by the collaborative editors can edit the /temp page. ---Rednblu | Talk 13:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Technical implementation. The formal implementation of the /temp page to separate the gangs should be a subpage under the main Wikipedia page--not a UserPage. It should be clear where the /temp page is: It is under the MainPage. No one should have to search through all the UserPages to find the matching /temp page! :(( ---Rednblu | Talk 13:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The proposal itself is good, but you should propably change some parts of the justification. In many edit wars both sides have good intention and each side isn't united but position in the dispute. Labeling them as gangs and destroyers is inaccurate and offensive.--Wikimol 22:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • You may be right. I would appreciate your providing a link to a revert war that was 1) not simple vandalism and did 2) not include some group of editors who thought they were defending Wikipedia quality against the edits that the reverters--presumably--sincerely and in good faith thought were the edits of "destroyers." :)) From the revert wars I have seen in my admittedly limited empirical observations, I would state the following falsifiable hypothesis: Where there is not simple vandalism on one side, both sides in the revert war proceed under the impression that they are defending Wikipedia quality against the "destroyers." 8)) Can you give a link to a counter-example? ---Rednblu | Talk 18:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea that's against the concept of a wiki. Remember "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it" and there's no such thing as a Wikipedia:Perfect article. Also, what's the difference between a "disruptive" editor, and one who is conducting a serious attempt to remove established POV? Finally, if you want your own sandbox, make it a subpage of your own userpage. jguk 23:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe one day all wikipedia articles will be as well written as Remains of the day (the book, not the article), but it is far off yet. CheeseDreams 00:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you're commenting on, but the concept of temporary splitting of competing versions is not that terrible. Rednblu's justification and side comments maybe are.
Certainly such "spatial splitting" is less harmful than "time-multiplex splitting" realized by flip-flop reverts of separately evolving versions.
I've seen several edit wars where splitting of "competing" version (usualy in someone's userspace) was helpful. It's also a solution when edit war ends in page beeing protected. IMO seting up competitig versions works in some situations, and thus should be promoted. No necessarily as a policy, maybe as constructive way of conflicting over controversial page. --Wikimol 23:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


---

Would you agree that collaborative editors "edit mercilessly" each other's writing without getting into a revert war? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My own opinion is that such a proposal is horrifically against the fundamental principle of a wiki. CheeseDreams 00:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pedants of the world, unite!

(Remember, the three revert rule says don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. This is understood not to include cases of clear vandalism.)

This states that vandals can revert as often as they like. It has plenty of precedent in Wikipedia, but probably it would be better to write "This is understood not to include reverting of cases of clear vandalism." --Zero 07:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All right, good to have that clarified. Everyking 07:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Uh, I'd just like to see the reaction to the first admin who interprets the rule that way. (Yes, I blocked you but not TrollVandal because you see his edits were a clear case of vandalism.) VeryVerily 18:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Passage

Since this proposal has passed, does that now mean that it goes into effect immediately? (i.e. Could I, right this second, block someone for violation 3RR?) BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why you could not. →Raul654 21:31, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Someone should integrate this policy into Wikipedia:Three revert rule first. Rhobite 22:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
I believe that honour should befall the author of this proposal, whomever that is. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll stick my head out and say the proposal has passed. It should be noted that most of those against the proposal appear to have been expressing concern over how the proposal would be implemented, rather than being opposed to the spirit of the proposal (though please see the detailed comments below for the full picture). Also a number of other users also expressed similar concerns whilst either voting for, or not voting at all on, the proposal. jguk 17:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification: "Would like concerns addressed"

There seems to have been some ambiguity about the poll. Some voters may have interpreted "Would like concerns addressed" as a voting option; some (myself included) interpreted it as a comment section separate from voting. In my case I voted "Yes" despite concerns. This doesn't affect the result because the motion was overwhelmingly carried, but it might be worth watching in future. Perhaps MediaWiki needs a polling tool. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 07:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also disagree with Anthony DiPierro's summary. I don't see how comments can be taken as a vote. Nor is his summary accurate, since many voting "Yes" or "No" also noted that they would like concerns addressed. For this vote, it's not important (the motion clearly passed), but where the vote is not so conclusive, counting these "comments" as votes may change the result. jguk 08:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well I for one don't actively disagree with Anthony; his interpretation is as good as mine, and it is arguable that some people making comments in that section could have intended to have that counted as a "not until my concerns are addressed" vote. I do think this ambiguity should be addressed, and I thank Anthony for pointing out the alternative interpretation. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 11:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I imagine it's moot, since the poll seems to have passed. But I voted no, and also asked for concerns to be addressed -- which I did not interpret as a voting option. If it were meant as a voting option, that section should have been title "Abstain until concerns are addressed" Wolfman 14:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
These votes should at least be mentioned, and the percentages should be removed or annotated. Better yet, interpretation should be left to the reader, rather than being unilaterally declared by one Wikipedian. anthony 警告 16:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
They weren't votes, though, as at least two of the people in question have already stated. Jayjg 23:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So we know the intention of two people, that still doesn't mean we know what the others intended. anthony 警告 02:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My concern here is actually with a bigger problem, particularly around VfDs. I've seen cases where votes for deletion have gone (and these are approximate numbers from memory) 60% for deletion, 25% for redirecting, and 15% for keep, and the "keep" voters have then insisted that since the votes were only 60% for deletion, the article must be kept. Clearly in this case the intent of 85% of voters is to remove the article, but the "keep" side uses a technicality to try to subvert that. If we now start counting any comment made or concern raised on any vote as a vote to do nothing, the problem will only get worse (well, except for people who philosophically believe that all articles are valid and should be kept). As well, I think allowing two or more votes per person in fundamentally unsound; should we allow people to vote "yes", "no" and "abstain" simultaneously? What, then, is the purpose and meaning of their vote? Jayjg 15:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deletion is an admin power. It requires consensus, not majority. Redirecting is not an admin power, and is nothing like deletion. A vote to redirect is a vote to keep as a redirect. anthony 警告 16:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Either way, the contents go, and that is what the voters intend. Jayjg 23:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When you merge and redirect the contents don't go. Even when you vote to redirect without merging the contents are still in the history. I vote to merge a lot without intending for the contents to go. If you want the contents to go, you should vote delete, not redirect. Redirect is a subset of keep, not delete. anthony 警告 02:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Votes for deletion isn't supposed to be run as something where you tally up the keeps vs the deletes at the end. Whoever closes off the vfd request is supposed to use their judgement as to what the "will of the people" is. Shane King 23:48, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Right, and if 85% of the people vote to delete or re-direct to a completely different article, then clearly the will of the people is to remove the current contents. And yet, those who want to keep it insist that there isn't over 80% for pure deletion, and that therefore the article contents must stay. I've seen it happen. Jayjg 23:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whether the article contents stay or it gets turned into a redirect isn't a concern of the vfd process though. You have to hammer that out on the talk page seperately. Votes to "redirect" are purely advisory, it's really just a vote to keep with a suggestion that it gets turned into a redirect once kept. "Merge" is similar. Some people only ever vote keep/delete for this reason, as they feel merge/redirect confuse the issue. Shane King 00:04, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
When the vote is that an article should be re-directed to another article with entirely different contents, then the intent is that the existing contents should vanish. This is especially the case when an article has been created as a POV fork of an existing article; sometimes this is done simply by changing the capitalization on one of the words in the Title, and using that as a base for the POV fork. I've seen many votes on this, and they were quite clear, turn the POV fork article into a simple re-direct back to the original article. Some people even suggest turning it into a re-direct and protecting. Jayjg 00:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If 85% of the people vote to delete or redirect I'd consider that preliminary evidence that there is a consensus to keep only as a redirect. But not everyone who cares about whether or not something should be redirected follows VFD, as VFD is about whether or not an article should be deleted. The best solution to the matter would probably be to only allow keep and delete votes, but a vote to redirect is certainly not a vote to delete. In any case, this is really an issue that should be brought up in an RFC. Page protection is an option temporarily when there is a clear consensus for redirection and a large number of anonymous vandals, but other than that I don't see the point. If there isn't a clear consensus for redirecting, then you should get consensus before protecting. If there are a few established users refusing to abide by a clear consensus, then they should be taken to arbitration. If sockpuppets start getting involved, then I can see the point of page protection, but only for a short period until things die down. anthony 警告 02:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/r/Wikipedia_talk%7EThree_revert_rule_enforcement_6e05.html"