Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Reverting a suspected banned user when there's no proof

I moved this from WP:AN/3RR; I've put it in italics.

User:143.238.245.213

Okay, this is not (yet) a 3RR violation, but I'm reporting it here because it's connected with the 3RR rule. User:143.238.245.213 is adding stuff to the Jim Duffy Talk Page, and from the context, it's almost certainly Skyring, posting anonymously. I reverted him, and he reverted me. We've both reverted three times now, and I'm not going to revert again, as I'm not sure what the rules are for reversions of suspected sockpuppets and/or suspected banned users posting anonymously. He's also reverting at Wikipedia:Requested moves, with the same claim – that Jim Duffy has not published any books, and shouldn't be listed as an author. It all ties in with Skyring's harrassment of Jtdirl, who, according to Skyring, is Jim Duffy in real life. I personally have no interest in whether the article lists him as a journalist or as an author, but I don't like to give in to a stalker. Ann Heneghan (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: he has now reverted three times at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and will probably make a fourth revert in the next few minutes! I'm going to bed now. Ann Heneghan (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
It's skyring, he's already banned the 3RR has nothing to do with it. --fvw* 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know if there is any policy on allowing an exception when we suspect (but can't prove) that it's a banned user editing anonymously, or a sockpuppet for a banned user. If we take the exception for reverting simple vandalism, it's normally easy for an admin to decide whether or not it really was vandalism that the user reverted four times. (Unfortunately, some users put "revert vandalism" in the edit summary when it's really just a reversion of POV, or even just an edit that the user disagrees with.) But in the case of the reversions I made last night, I had no proof that it was Skyring. It's just that it seemed fairly obvious that it was, as he went straight for Jim Duffy again, and it would be too much of a coincidence that a genuine anon would have had the same interests and arguments. His talk page shows that others agreed with my guess.

Is there any guarantee that I wouldn't have been blocked if I had continued? And if so, should this page have some addition to show that reverting banned users is also okay? Ann Heneghan (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

there is no guarantee You just have to hope that people agree with you.Geni 12:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Posting a comment on the administrator's notice board explaining your actions will go a long way to avoiding a block in such situations. Kelly Martin 16:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks as if I was wise to stop, then! And actually, I agree that since suspected sockpuppetry is not as clear cut as definite vandalism, there shouldn't be a guarantee of being allowed to continue with impunity. However, if I were an admin, I don't think I could find it in me to block someone who was reverting nasty personal attacks. And they're not listed as exceptions either. Ann Heneghan (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Where are the "nasty personal attacks", Ann? The anon merely says that Jim Duffy (author) has published no books. Perhaps the article could include a list of published books? Can someone look into this?
Hello again, Skyring. Just to clarify – my reference to "nasty personal attacks" was not directly connected to your harrassment of Jtdirl. I was making a general comment. The key sentence is, And they're not listed as exceptions either. By the way, have you forgotten, you've been banned for a year? And I don't think the year is up yet. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Good morning, Ann! Though I suppose it's getting onto midnight where you are. Seriously, I can't see your point with the "exceptions" comment, and anyway, you accuse me of harassing jtdirl when he, you and others are trying to do exactly the same thing to me. So don't go claiming any moral high ground, sister! As for a year long ban, well, I should have thought it obvious by now that I don't give a fig for it. A month I might have swallowed. It's far too much fun to see people running around reverting good edits and trying to claim that black is white for me to stay away for a whole year. And the key point is that it's fun. Whatever happened to the noted Irish sense of fun and good humour?

3RR and CSD G4

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)

query re what constitutes a revert

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)

3RR Modification, No Tagteaming

I'd like to modify 3RR to remove tagteaming:

Rather than 3 reverts per article per 24 hours, it's 3 reverts per article per editor. So if Ann is having a nice editwar with Bob and Charlotte, Ann could revert Bob 3 times, and could revert Charlotte 3 times. This helps identify and block entire tag-teams, which at this point in time seems to be becoming more important. (re: some cliquebusting proposals which have been floating around... are any of those on-wiki yet?)

Kim Bruning 22:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, but if Bob asks Charlotte to help him revert Ann's edits, that means there's a stronger consensus for Bob's version. Likewise, if Ann asks David and Ewan to help with the reverting, that means her version has consensus. If Bob and Charlotte ask Frank and Gregor to join in, then they have the consensus in their favor. And so forth. Usually Ann or Bob will ask their uninvolved friend Ada the Admin to protect the page (they won't be so crass as to specify which version should be protected, of course, but they don't need to) before it gets this far.
I won't deny that cliques and tagteaming are a problem, but the problem is with the editors, not the rule. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That would be a rather major change in policy, and one that I would not agree to - it would allow POV warriors to hold the entire rest of Wikipedia at bay, merrily reverting each editor who disagrees with them 3 times. For example, not so long ago, the Disruptive Apartheid editor reverted 10 different editors at the Apartheid article, and would have reverted 100 more, until everyone had reached "consensus" and "agreement" (i.e. his version). He still goes on to this day about the "tag-teams". What POV-warriors and trolls tend to call "tag-teams" other Wikipedians often call "consensus". Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
What happens now though is that a very small clique can form a tagteam to lock out new editors to a particular article (ie. take ownership) Kim Bruning 22:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
There are many dispute resolution mechanisms to draw additional editors into an article. I think your cure is worse than the problem. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
New editors are not always likely to be aware of such mechanisms. That, and I think 3RR has several flaws that might be fixed by a proposal like this. It's no disastar if there's a couple more reverts on a particular article, imvho. But we do catch who's busy gaming the system that way. Kim Bruning 22:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's just get back to basics, okay? This 3RR rule isn't supposed to solve all the worlds problems.
It was implemented on the premise that it was a simple rule, an clerical procedure that could be handled by any administrator to take some burden off the arbitration committee. This procedure exists only because there isn't supposed to be much of anything in the way of judgment involved. Let's keep it that way.
So get back to simply enforcing that rule, and let everything else be taken care of by other appropriate procedures. Enforce it fairly, across the board. Don't make exceptions because X is a "good editor". Don't make exceptions because there is a lull in the edit war. Just do the one day block that is supposed to be appropriate under this rule. Gene Nygaard 00:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Kim, wouldn't this proposal give more power to the individual revert warrior? As additional users revert his edits, the warrior gains more reverts. If five editors are reverting another user's edits, do we really want that editor to be able to revert a total of 15 times? Am I misunderstanding the details of your proposal? Carbonite | Talk 22:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
You can still block or protect if an edit war becomes that big and that clear. At the same time, this allows us to find all the participants, so a lot of stuff that was once hidden now becomes visible. It would be interesting and useful, even if perhaps only for a short while. Kim Bruning 22:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, it still seems to me like it would give revert warriors more power. I think we'd also create a new problem of having to decide whether a group of editors was a clique or not. I've seen many instances of an editor trying a tiny minority view (often original research) into an article and being opposed by several editors who had the page on their watchlist. With this proposal, there would be accusations of tag-teaming and claims that the 3RR didn't apply because multiple editors were reverting him. Basically, in trying to solve one problem, I believe we'd be creating an even worse one. Carbonite | Talk 23:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Well it certainly shifts the problem, I do agree! The thing is I'm hearing rumors about certain activity, the current 3RR is masking that activity, and I am darn curious to find out what's actually been going on under our radars all this time. Kim Bruning 23:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
So start monitoring the the 3RR reporting page.Geni 23:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps. How would this help? Kim Bruning 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
You might be in a better position to acertain the truth of these romours. Geni 00:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, in fact there have been some RFCs with evidence that basically got truncated by the 3RR... that was somewhat annoying. Kim Bruning 01:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? Which RfCs would have had more evidence if your proposal has been enacted? I'm having a hard time seeing the clique problem without an example of how your proposal would have helped. Carbonite | Talk 14:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What happens now though is that a very small clique can form a tagteam to lock out new editors to a particular article (ie. take ownership)—Yes indeed, but. . . What if all the teams in the above example (Bob and Charlotte, David and Ewan, Frank and Gregor), who agree on little else, all agree that Ann's edits should be reverted? Is this a clique in action, or is it one crank trying to control the article in the face of consensus (the real thing, not the Wikipedia Bizarro Consensus) against her? I would submit that many instances of Case 1 (multi-sided disagreement, with one slightly outnumbering the other) are cast as instances of Case 2 (editors of multiple viewpoints united in opposing a crank). —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That's actually one of the questions that I'm hoping to answer by trying this. Kim Bruning 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think one should change policy in a major and dangerous way simply to satisfy curiousity about "rumors" one is hearing. If there are specific charges, investigate them. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, you can always block and/or protect for editwarring, 3RR just limits the scope of edit wars. What I'd like to do is loosen 3RR slightly, and hopefully some stuff will crawl up out from under the woodwork. If there's nothing actually there, the change will have little to no effect anyway I think. Kim Bruning 01:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand, especially with regard to the problems faced by newbies. As it is now, a newbie who reverts a few times will be told about the 3RR. A newbie who violates it might receive only a warning; if there's a short block, it's at least based on violation of an explicit rule. Suppose four other editors disagree with the newbie's edit. They keep reverting, but the newbie, having diligently read the 3RR as you'd revise it, reverts them all (12 times total), and then gets blocked for edit warring despite having been careful to conform to the rule. How would this change benefit the newbie?
I also don't understand what might "crawl up out from under the woodwork". There really are articles where editor Ann wants to insert something and editors Bill, Connie, Dennis, and Eve disagree. If Ann is sufficiently obstinate, what will crawl up is that she'll keep reverting. What do we learn from that? The change would have a major effect in such cases. Edit wars of this type (one committed iconoclast against the world) do occur now, and will occur much more often if the iconoclast no longer finds his or her efforts thwarted by the 3RR. JamesMLane 10:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Your assumption is that 3RR only gets applied in situations it was designed for. Kim Bruning 13:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of this proposal, or anything else that would increase the amount of edit warring that is permitted. Really three reverts is a ridiculously high number for one person to make on any one article in a twenty-four hour period. The last thing I want is for A to be able to do three reverts against B, three reverts against C, and so on. That way lies lunacy. If there is a multi-way edit war then all parties need to stop, and 3RR with all its faults does have that effect. The 3RR has unfortunately had the effect of appearing to sanction edit warring to the extent that many editors believe and openly profess edit warring to be a permissible way of forcing through their own point of view by wearing down opposition. Obviously these people can still be stopped for disruptive behavior, but it won't do to have a change in 3RR that gives the disruptive editors even more cause to believe that their behavior is ever acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to chime in here as someone who implements online rules and policies for a living, I agree that the proposed modification would overly empower cranks and highly motivated single-issue types. It seems clear to me that the original intention (or, at least, one of the original intentions) behind 3RR was to provide a defense against cranks, who are usually highly motivated by their own irrationality. Anything which reduces that defense is bad, IMHO. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Our biggest problem atm is not so much cranks as it is cliques, the few cranks we can handle (else send them my way :-P ). I'd like to do something about cliques. Hmmm, maybe you have some other idea about what might be a better plan? Kim Bruning 13:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Our biggest problem at the moment is not so much cranks as it is cliques? I see no evidence of this. Please stop making vague accusations; if you have specific charges, out with them. Jayjg (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes please! Do you have specific proposals as to how I could go about collecting sufficient evidence to come up with those charges? Kim Bruning 17:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Um, investigate complaints? That's the way it's usually done, as opposed to making huge changes to policy in the hopes that it will somehow flush evidence out of the woodwork. Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so I've gotten a handful of complaints that "cliques are running the system", and they've pointed me at certain people, but I don't have enough evidence to point a finger. On investigating further, I run across lots of revert wars, but I can't say with certainty what the exact situation is, because the 3RR truncates the fight. At that point I drop by here and propose (temporarily?) relaxing policy and observing the results :-) Kim Bruning 18:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Get RFC working. I can see plenty of ways an editor warrior can exploite your rule change. The 3RR exists for one reseason. To prevent high speed brute force edit wars. If the 3RR is stoping you from getting a version you can accept it is time to rethink your tactics or your position.Geni 13:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
How did you come to the conclusion that cliques are a bigger problem than cranks? Also, even assuming that cliques are that big of a problem, how is this specific proposal going to solve the problem? As I pointed out above (and you agreed), we'd being creating the new problem of having to decided whether a group of editors was a clique or just happened to represent consensus.
I've always been dealing with cranks of all sorts, hey, I started WP:TINMC! (most folks you get there aren't cranks, for sure, but once in a while...). Currently I'd say we have the cranks bit down pat, no worries! Now for the cliques part. I'll answer that below to carbonite also. Kim Bruning 13:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't we be tossing the policy of "assume good faith" out the window? It seems like the default assumption of this proposal is that when multiple editors revert a single editor, the group is a tag-teaming clique. It's common practice for editors to seek the opinion of others if they notice someone reverting an article. In fact, some editors even follow a 1RR and will never get engaged in a revert war. Instead, they bring in other editors as soon as possible. This proposal would discourage such good behavior because revert warriors see the 3RR as an entitlement. Carbonite | Talk 13:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
If the 3RR is an entitlement at all, it's probably broken. But assuming that it isn't, we don't have to assume some group is a clique or not, but what we *WOULD* see is situations where groups exist, and we can work from there. 3RR is like an electric fence. All I'm asking is to move the fence back a bit so that we get to see what actually gets zapped by it. Kim Bruning 13:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Defining hard limits in a ruleset, while occasionally necessary, will always invite rules lawyers. If your online policy says "20 or more substantially identical posts to Usenet per day will be considered spamming," then you may rest assured there will be at least one person (and probably more) who will post 19 substantially identical posts and then claim they weren't spamming.
Consider that your proposal would also exponentially empower the cliques you seek to thwart. A clique of four vs. a clique of three would be able to generate 72 edits to a page per day before anybody ran afoul of the relaxed rule. Adding a single person to either clique would either generate an extra 18 edits allowed per day (clique of five vs. clique of three) or an extra 24 edits allowed per day (clique of four vs. clique of four). And you can bet your sweet bippy that anybody gaming the system to that extent would holler like a madman that they had not broken any official Wikipedia policy if you tried to ban them for edit warring prior to their reaching that limit.
I am presuming (perhaps erroneously) that you feel such edit-warring between cliques will become significantly more obvious with a more relaxed ruleset. I am further presuming (also perhaps erroneously) that you envision admins using these more obvious edit wars to lock down the war prior to it reaching the N edits per day per page limit (which, as I point out above, can be quite high with only a small number of participants). Assuming that my presumptions are true, then the enforcement mechanism of the rule boils down admins using a judgement call to enforce the spirit of the rule prior to the letter of the rule being violated.
And if you're going to rely on a judgement call made by individual admins, then why have a rule in the first place? Just say "Admins can, in their judgement, block people who are obviously engaged in edit wars" and be done with it.
Of course, if I have presumed incorrectly with any of the above, you are free to disregard it. ;) → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
You got pretty darn far! Actually, I'd like to relax the rule at least for a little while and just observe what happens. Admins just apply the rule as normal. The trick would lie in observing what happens when we do that.
It's like casting a net. When you're done you haul up little fish and big fish. We can toss back the little fish, and end up with the big fish we were looking for.
After a while we can stop fishing again, especially if we start catching more little fish than big ones.
I wonder if they'll still bite  :-) Kim Bruning 14:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
My belief is that Wikipedia has achieved critical mass in that regard. It is sufficiently large that there will always be someone willing to bite. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Geni's assertion to get RFC working is the best idea in this thread--the trick is how? The idea that you can solve problems with version-pushers (whether from an individual or a clique) with increased attention is a good one. But the RFC cavalry does not come to the rescue when there's a problem. Why? I suspect it's because people feel with certain articles they're in for a fight, so offering their opinion does little good (how many times has someone shaken their head... "I'm not getting involved in that one"). I happen to think that offering a stickier form of consensus would help, since people would feel that once we worked out what we want to say on the talk page, that version would have a stability that's harder to dislodge. Is this it? I don't think it is, and enforcement is ugly and problematic--the spectre of people reaching months back into an edit history and finding a revert you forgot, just to trip you up and get you blocked on a legalistic point... no thanks. Demi T/C 15:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Ha! Well, my comment doesn't really make sense unless you know that I misunderstood the proposal. I thought the revision was an editor could not revert an article more than three times, ever. The proposed change is just awful. Demi T/C 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
THANKS! :-P *ahem* Ah well, if even Demi says it's a bad idea, then it's back to the drawing board for me. Any suggestions? Kim Bruning 17:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's A vs. B, C, and D, I think the interpretation "A is a crank" is more helpful than "B, C and D are a clique" at least until others agree with A. —Ashley Y 17:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Ashley Y, though my view is colored by my having wasted huge amounts of time in the last month dealing with a single -- uh, let me say "iconoclastic editor" instead of "crank". If other editors look at the article and the talk page and agree with me, and these are editors with whom I've had little or no previous interaction, are we collectively a "clique" just because we agree on something? The best suggestion I can offer at this point is that you try to give us a clearer picture of the problem you want to address. JamesMLane 17:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well yes, that'd show up quite a lot. Filtering for the actual cliques would definately be a chore I guess. Since we're going back to the drawing board, What else could we do? Kim Bruning 18:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
We might be better served by analyzing a few specifics so we can get a handle on whether the problem is general or not. Also, I (and Geni) did point out the making RFC work better might address some clique issues. Demi T/C 19:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that discussing specific incidents would be more productive than coming up with hypothetical situations. Without understanding the problem, we've little chance of developing an effective solution. Carbonite | Talk 19:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick definitions: a clique is any group of editors who agree with each other and disagree with me. A crank is any editor apart from myself whom nobody agrees with. —Ashley Y 21:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Next Day" Loophole

This may have been discussed elsewhere, but 3RR is seriously flawed since many users just wait and spread out their fourth edit until the Next Day. Even this this is basically what 3RR is designed to prevent, it's not covered under 3RR. The most recent example of this that i've seen is at British Sea Power by Pigsonthewing. He wants a crufty interview in there that has probably been removed over a dozen times, but he keeps on putting it back through this loophole. Karmafist 15:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you seem unable to refrain from making personal attacks; and from twisting the truth. Andy Mabbett 16:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The rule is violated by four reverts in any 24-hour period, not just a calendar day. Looking at the history of British Sea Power, I see recent edits by Pigsonthewing at these times (UTC):
19:02, 16 November 2005
22:08, 16 November 2005
11:02, 17 November 2005
22:00, 17 November 2005
Even if all these edits were reverts (I haven't looked at them), there's no 3RR violation because no 24-hour period contains more than three reverts. On the other hand, if the fourth edit in the list had been made before 19:02 on 17 November, that would be a violation, the passage of midnight somewhere in the world notwithstanding. I wouldn't call this a loophole. A user in this situation might be ready to go with another revert at 13:00 on the 17th, but would have to wait several hours. The rule doesn't eliminate edit wars, it just tones them down. The hope is that the toning down would create a better atmosphere for reaching a resolution. JamesMLane 18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, of course, with people who "game" the system. See WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system. Maybe it's time to expand 3RR to state that 4 reversions in one day, or 8 reversions (7RR?) in one (7 day) week are a violation? In any event, people engaging in reverts like this should either try to gain consensus, or seek mediation or a third opinion. --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 23:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Weren't you just blocked for making ten reverts to my talk page, in one day? Andy Mabbett 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Talk pages and User Pages aren't covered under 3RR, POTW. Karmafist 16:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Which is another thing I'd like to see changed (both having user-space talk pages (not user space articles, but actual talk/discussion pages) subject to 3RR (or any similar rule) as well as considering it vandalism to remove warnings from your talk page (especially warnings that lead to discipline)). —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Wrong again, Karmafist. Andy Mabbett 15:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
He's not wrong, actually. It would be nice if he was though, since you would have violated that rule repeatedly by now. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 15:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
He's not wrong, actually.: Cite? Andy Mabbett 16:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:3RR#User_pages —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 17:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Specificaly..? BTW, please don't use deprecated HTML in your sig. It shows great discourtesy to people with visual impairments and other conditions. Andy Mabbett 17:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The rule doesn't do *ANYTHING*. Check out that all-august-long revert war on Bill Oddie. Additionally, the 3RR page, last time i looked, even said it's not appropriate to attempt to game it. Reverting is bad. 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. But, it never gets used that way, it ALWAYS gets used as an entitlement. *sigh*. --Phroziac . o º O (mmm chicken) 13:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Reverting is bad: It is also sometimes necessary, for example when people keep insisting that someone is a native of a town that they didn't move to, until mid-way through their childhood. Or when they insist that somewhere is not part of a conurbation of which it is part. Or keep removing a NPoV tag from a page whose neutrality is hotly disputed. Or, in Karmafist's case, when they can use it as a threat to get their way. Oh, hang on... Andy Mabbett 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
You use 3RR to push your POV which is explicitly not what it's for. If you make an edit and someone reverts it you should try to discuss the change before pushing it through via repeated reversions (see WP:1RR). If you disagree after discussing it with the person who reverted you, you should try to gain consensus by presenting evidence that your edit makes more sense. Simply pushing things through will not work and is how revert wars are began. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
There was discussion in each case; except one. The one where Karmafist made his threat. Andy Mabbett 15:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
You mean the discussion in the edit summaries? IME, it's rare that you actually talk on someones talk page in a cordial or cooperative manner, and it's equally rare when you don't leave a snide, argumentative edit summary. Rarely do you explain your edits, but when reverted, you immediately demand explanation for the reversion (problematic, because you haven't yet explained your edits in the first place typically). —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 15:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I note that your E is EL - extremely limited; which might explain the fatuousness of your comment. Andy Mabbett 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
What on Earth are you talking about now? —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 15:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
QED. Andy Mabbett 16:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Clearly this is something only you understand. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 17:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. For those of you who don't know POTW's sordid history, please check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing

This thread has been entered into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence, thanks for discussing this loophole in the 3RR Rule. Karmafist 03:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I note that you continue to spout abuse. Andy Mabbett 15:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I note you still haven't responded to your RFAr. If Karmafist is abusing you, you should be able to present convincing evidence of that there, as well as be able to provide rebuttal evidence aginst the supposed false allegations of abuse. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 15:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
There is no if; and I have already presented evidence of his abusive comments and behaviour, on the appropriate pages. BTW, please don't use deprecated HTML in your sig. It shows great discourtesy to people with visual impairments and other conditions. Andy Mabbett 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Funny, I've seen the pages where you present this "evidence" and you have in fact presented nothing at all except your misreading of English. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 15:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that this loophole is unavoidable. No matter what changes you make to the particular numbers involved, there will always be some point after which the number of reverts a user has made in the last X period of time will decrement by one. What amazes me is that some people appear to be surprised by this.
If you really want to solve the problem, then perhaps the entire concept of limiting users to a specific number of reverts in a certain time period needs to be rethought. I admit I don't have any specific alternatives to offer, but realizing the problem exists is step one. Kurt Weber 00:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Rather than hard numbers (which is not what Karmafist was proposing I believe), the 3RR should be updated to include language that gives the investigating admin the authority to block if he believes the person accused is "gaming" the 3RR. (Actually admins already have this authority I believe, but few use it; perhaps spelling it out in the 3RR would encourage admins to stop people from doing that)? —Locke Cole 05:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that only exacerbates the problem; instead of limiting the number and frequency of reverts, I think the limit should be placed on the acceptable reasons for reverts instead. See Wikipedia talk:Zero-revert rule#Not all reverts are bad. Kurt Weber 12:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I personally never block on "3RR". I block on edit warring very rarely. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Deprecated HTML

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)
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)
LOL. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the policy

"As the point of the 3RR is to prevent the continuation of stale edit wars, only report the violation to WP:AN/3 if it is less than 72 hours old. Enforcement of the 3RR is intended as a corrective, rather than punitive measure."

In light of User:SEWilco's reporting of no less than eleven (and counting) "to be treated as 3RR violations" of a single user, up to and including a month and a week old, and the general consensus at WP:AN/3 being that it is ridiculous to dredge up ancient 3RR violation, I'm proposing this addition, in line with WP:3RR#Intent of the policy. If someone's causing trouble over a period greater than three days, they'll either violate 3RR again or be in trouble for other reasons. Trying to get people blocked by dragging up old 3RRs is more of a disruption than the original edit war - SoM 21:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The first sentence is m:instruction creep. Wikipedia doesn't believe in strict limits such as "72 hours". The second sentence sounds very obvious to me, and as such I'd have no objection to having it added some place. Radiant_>|< 22:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What if it was extended or vagued up a bit? ('sides 3/24 isn't a strict limit?) I really want something in the text about dredging stuff up from a week or more back. - SoM 23:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • We don't really need anything, since I presume most admins will just ignore the kind of thing that is being dredged up at present. -Splashtalk 23:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the goal is stopping the admins, it's pre-empting the bad-faith tactic of dredging up old incidents and po-facedly claiming that it's a matter of enforcing literal policy.

(Yep - SoM 00:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

You could couple a restatement of the intent of the policy:

  • "Given that the policy is intended to stop edit wars, not mete out punishment"

or something like that, with:

  • "therefore, reports dredging up old incidents long past their sell-by date applicability/relevance to this policy...
  • ...are pointless.
  • ...will not be looked upon kindly.
  • ...will be treated as a WP:POINT violation.
  • ...will be mocked mercilessly.
  • ...will be sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.

Not a great deal of instruction creep, which is always inevitable given the propensity by some to look for loopholes. Somewhere David Gerard commented that ArbCom decisions can be pretty complex because they're always having to say, "No, you can't do THAT, either." --Calton | Talk 00:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Only on condition you leave the Hitchhikers reference in :)
In other words, I'd be fine with that. - SoM 00:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Has the ArbComm stated that the penalties for parole are "intended to stop edit wars, not mete out punishment?" (SEWilco 05:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC))
What does ArbCom have to do with this? Answer: nothing. It also seems to have escaped your notice that those who've expressed opposition to adding this statement about people posting past-their-sell-by-date reports are doing so on the grounds of common sense; namely that this tactic is too obviously bogus to be worth being specific about.
In any case, pay close attention to the highlighted portion of the next quote, from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule:
The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars.
I hope this clears things up. If you have any objections to this policy-intention statement, perhaps you can state them in the form of a sentence which is not a rhetorical question (which would be an interesting change of pace). --Calton | Talk 06:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Answer: The ArbComm issued a ruling stating requirements during parole, and what the penalty is for violations. Clarification has been requested for those needing clarification. (SEWilco 03:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
If you have any objections to this policy-intention statement, perhaps you can actually state them instead of changing the subject. Thanks in advance. --Calton | Talk 05:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd strongly support the Hitchhikers' clarification. A hard-and-fast time limit rule is unecessary bureaucratic instruction creep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the spirit of this: the intent is not punitive, it's a cooling off period. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto (and I have been on both ends) Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 00:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Not intending to preempt this discussion -- I hadn't noticed it until a moment ago -- I've already made a much vaguer edit in the same general spirit to the 3RRHeader pseudo-template thingie. (Why isn't that text simply on the incidents page itself, btw?) It seemed reasonable to do this on the basis of the apparent unanimity on the page that old violations weren't reasonably blockable. Though that's of course not directly a change to the policy as such. If anyone feels this is premature, excessive, insufficient, etc, then please revert merrily. Up to thrice, even! Alai 20:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The place this belongs is WP:AN/3RR. That's where admins get told about 3RR violations; they can be trusted to ignore ancient ones, as has just been shown. If an admin feels applying a block will stop an edit war, the block will be applied; if the admin feels otherwise, it won't. It would be an odd admin who would feel that a month-old 3RR violation would stop an edit war. A note on AN/3RR should suffice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As someone who was recently blocked for 24 hours over a 5 day old 3RR violation, I gotta agree that this language is necessary. I don't have any problem with the 72 hour specification either (instruction creep or not), though I think it should be shorter; 36-48 hours perhaps? As the proposed second sentence suggests, the point of 3RR is to end a revert war and give people time to cool off. —Locke Cole 01:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

A discussion on the reformulation of the 3RR policy

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

3RR when its not an actual revert, just a change

I would like to know what the policy is when someone else is changing a page dramatically in acts of vandalism and you are merely trying to diplomatically reach a compromise. Does it count as a violation of 3RR when you are not actually reverting, and are not writing what was originally there, but rather a compromise between the two? Is there a policy on this? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

As I read the above statement, there are a couple of separate questions.
First, with respect to vandalism–genuine vandalism, as defined at Wikipedia:Vandalism–you can revert that as frequently as is necessary.
Second, when someone makes dramatic edits–perhaps with a specific POV in mind–that's not vandalism within our strict definitions. Hash it out on the talk page or use a request for comment to seek the opinions of other editors. The 3RR does not apply when you don't restore an article to a previous form. That is, if you attempt to merge in the other edits or reach a compromise, the 3RR does not enter into play.
Note that admins will enforce the 3RR for so-called 'complex' reverts, where an editor uses several consecutive edits to revert to a preferred previous article version. In general, if you're concerned that your actions might run afoul of the 3RR rule, it's a good idea to take a bit of a break and seek outside opinions; even if you're not violating policy you may not be engaging in the best dispute resolution strategy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, that's why I am writing here, and wrote in a few people's talk pages to see what they think. By the way, a lot of the edits were just blanking the entire article, while others were changing all of one name to a different name. Some were just wiping out huge sections of text. Not all of them were vandalism per the definition of what vandalism is, only about 1/2-3/4 were. Anyway, they then put in a request for page protection and then nominated it for an AFD, and got all of their friends to vote "delete" (all with no edit history outside of the article), insisting that they didn't like that the article exists. Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point seemed to apply, but apparently not enough people referred to that for it to be a speedy keep and it is going through the full process. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It's no biggie for an article to be on AfD for a week. The notice will come off the page at that time, and any further renominations will be strongly discouraged. You can continue to edit and improve the article as usual even while it is being considered for deletion. Don't worry about a bunch of sockpuppets/meatpuppets with brand-new accounts showing up to vote—the admin closing the deletion discussion can discount suspiciously new voters. (It may help if you leave a note in small text under each new account, briefly explaining that the above comment is this editor's first edit.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Page revert in stages counts as one revert or many?

I had a question about 3RR. My initial reading would be that it means restoring the same thing three times. However, what happens if someone takes an altered page and restores it to an original condition using several edits? I might myself do this where complex changes have been made to a page some of which are desireable to keep, some not. I would imagine this would particularly apply to any page subject to very high activity where it might be virtually impossible to prepare a new version before someone else created an edit conflict. But it can be simply easier to re-edit in several goes.

So, how do five edits made to restore the same page to one original condition count?

Similarly, if over the course of a day five edits are made reverting different points, though at different times in response to changes by different people (i.e. not simply reverting one event slowly, as above, but restoring five different events about different sections, but overall only restoring everything one time). How would that count?

Next question: If someone creates alternate brand-new versions of a disputed section each time and inserts them, does this count as reversion? Sandpiper 10:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is my interpretation of the rule as it applies to this case:
1) It says that reverting a single page in whole or in part no more than 3 times. Now, if it takes you 5 edits to do the reversion or 1 edit, it doesn't matter. Those 5 edits combined count as 1 revert. Ergo, if you do 3 lots of 5 edits, then that's your 3 reverts.
2) If they have made 5 wrong things, and you revert them all in one go, that counts as 1 revert. (e.g. if they blank the page by blanking each section, and you then restore the whole page, then that's 1 revert - although actually that's a bad example since that's vandalism and doesn't count).
I think I didn't quite say what I meant. I make five separate reversions of five different alterations made by different people all during one day. So overall, no part of the article has been reverted more than once, but there have been five separate partial reverts. Do they all count as making up one revert, or five? Sandpiper
This is where discretion comes in to it. In my opinion, you have effectively only made 1 reversion, whether you made it in 5 steps or not. I mean, if you think about it logically, you *COULD HAVE* done all of that in 1 reversion. So in my opinion there is no question that it counts as 1 reversion. If someone disagrees, I think that you have a good argument to put forward Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Well that would have been my opinion too, but it the sort of situation where there may be disagreemnt, once you start to think about it. I can take that as a definitive....opinion, then. Sandpiper 01:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
3) No, that counts as edit warring. If they are brand new versions of a disputed section, a different writing each time, its not reversion. You can revert their edits though, but them making these changes is not reversion. Them making such big changes, especially to a disputed question, may cause other problems however.
Ok, so what is the relevant policy on edit warring then? Sandpiper
Eek, I'd have to look. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I had a look too, can't remember what it said, probably something like Eek. Sandpiper 01:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that help? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

yes but....

Well, you weren't banned, were you? So you must have been okay. Violations of 3RR get you a 24 hour block. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think I was in any danger of being banned, but coming across the situation was wanting to get a precise understanding of the rules. But wiki is not...precise definitions of rules. Sandpiper 22:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Reversions

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)

reverts of pure copyrighted aditions should probably be allowed. Mixed no.Geni 13:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin reverts

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." [1] 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)

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)
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)

I took deletions and undeltes to cout as edits for 3RR purposes as both establsihed policy and as comon sense -- both change the state of the displayed page. Protection is perhaps more dubious, but I would include it. There are otehr ways to deal with block wars i think and they probably count as disruption anyway. DES (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked for 3RR for doing quite a lot of deletes of an attack template. Although someone seems to have changed the written policy without discussion (and I would have appreciated being made aware of the change before being blocked) I support the change in principle. There are exceptional circumstances where administrators may differ over when it is appropriate to reverse a deletion or undeletion (copyright, attacks, defamation and serious vandalism come to mind) but then that is the kind of decision administrators are expected to take and so the existence of an "electric fence" will at least make administrators think about alternatives before crashing through it. This should apply to all actions taken by an administrator that he could not have performed without administrator powers.

I don't think this is a matter of commonsense; it's far from obvious to me that disagreements between admins over admin actions are problematic. They usually work themselves out quickly and cause little or no disruption. The arbitrators tend to take the view that circumstances matter: "it is a true pleasure to see that sysop powers are not only used for winning arguments or destroying the project"[2] and "all I see is people doing the best they can" [3] and in the light of that sensible, pragmatic interpretation I'm more than happy with this proposed change to policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested new addition to the rule

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)

Tighten policy!

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)

Blind revert

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) HHHHEEEEEEEEEEEYY!!!

Longer blocks?

Forgive me if I'm stirring up a can of worms here... but although the policy sez:

If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.

its becoming clear that sysops (inc me) are blocking people for longer than 24h for multiple repeat offences. Sometimes these longer blocks have at least a semblance of compliance because they say "3rr and incivility" or somesuch; sometimes not. No-one (not even those blocked!) seems to be complaining about this, which suggests that either no-one has noticed, or that those who have, are happy. I suggest the policy be modified, perhaps to:

If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours; or at their discretion for longer in the case of repeat offences. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.

If this has already been discussed elsewhere, I'd be interested to know... William M. Connolley 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

I'd say that it's covered under the 'disruption' clause of the blocking policy. One 3RR violation may be a misstep made in the heat of the moment. Blocks are 24 hours (or sometimes less, if the offending party agrees to stop edit warring) to allow the violator to cool down and sleep on things.
A repeat revert warrior who makes a habit of violating 3RR or engaging in general edit warring is disruptive and may drive off other editors and interfere with the collaborative editing process. If 24 hour blocks aren't sufficient to allow an editor to cool down and acknowledge that edit warring is unproductive, longer blocks may be used to attract their attention and limit disruptive behaviour.

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR blocks for other parties in ArbCom cases?

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)

User: Urthogie committed 3RR

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)

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)

Once reverted

I inserted text that Jayjg later removed:

If you just conservatively keep to the talk page once you've been reverted once, you can never go wrong.

The test didn't originate from me, yet I added it. How can we clarify this, as something is need to be said. Some admins obvious do not block basically on identical reverts, as they have allowed regular edits to count towards reverts on a 3RR. The suggestion above helps avoid the situation to where the admin judges if an edit counts towards a 3RR type revert. We could dig up the archives and compare outcomes of 3RR and show how the the 3RR rule is not equally applied, but that inclusion is surely not wanted. I'm also sure we want to avoid m:Instruction creep. Any suggestions on how to clarify this? — Dzonatas 02:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a proposal:

If at least one editor has made a fourth revert, any other editor that has made at least two reverts in direct relation to the four will also be blocked.

It enforces the 3RR equally on all those who edit war, and what I stated earlier can be avoided. Any objections or comments? — Dzonatas 15:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Too instruction-creepish. Admins should just use common sense with it, like some of us already do. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this project page is just not clear enough. — Dzonatas 22:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The rule is the rule, and further sub-rules, or different rules, should not be added. You seem to be trying to get unequal treatment for parties here; that is, one editor can revert 4 times before being blocked, but all other editors get blocked after 2 reverts? This doesn't make sense. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The intent is not to get unequal. When two or more users revert each other, one may be block or not on the fourth revert. Instead of a favorable or judgemental call, the added text just establishes a "we don't pick sides" on the block on those involved in the revert war. It's based on the "it takes two to tango." If another editor contributed to the revert war, the editor gets blocked also. The 3RR is to prevent revert wars and not to allow it as a reason to revert. — Dzonatas 22:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This rule is about Three reverts; you appear to want to change it into a "One revert" rule, which is something else again. In any event, your proposed policy change would have huge implications, since it would allow one editor to essentially hold an article hostage against any number of other editors. Jayjg (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Definitely no to the new text. The original addition was essentially null; the only problem was that Dzontas apparently thought it meant something. His edit comment [4] is completely out of touch with the text inserted (and now removed). William M. Connolley 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC).
William, would you please put to rest whatever you had against me. Clarity is something this documents needs. — Dzonatas 22:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think its you that needs to put things to rest. As I say: I didn't complain about your text chage; just your apparent misunderstanding of it, as evidenced by your edit comment. William M. Connolley 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC).
Consider that the text change is based on advice given after an event where you blocked me, it seems very well appropriate. I could of made the edit summary say: "provides a hint on how to avoid a loophole," which would be very in-line with the change. — Dzonatas 15:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There are many times where two or more users are completely justified in reverting a tenacious edit warrior more than once. There have been many times where I, along with other editors, have reverted a single user two or three times each while they break WP:3RR to blank or change massive amounts of text that they alone feel needs to be altered without appealing to discussion or consensus of any kind. Because their changes have a reason, however superficial, the changes are not vandalism, and so we are not able to revert past three times. See the history at Mike Del Grande, Derek Smart, or Neowin as examples. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that maybe I should give some history for the examples I offered:
  • At Mike Del Grande (very recently), a flood of anon ips tried to blank the "Controversies" section of the article with claims that the text there was unfounded. When the page was semi-protected, a new user account User:Adidas98 (with edits only on the Mike Del Grande article) continued to try to blank the controversies section. He reverted the page 5 or 6 times. We tried to spark communication at a Mediation Cabal case.
  • At Derek Smart a user, User:Supreme_Cmdr has been unilaterally reverting to remove an external link that is both relevant and germane to the article. I sought mediation at this case and despite the large majority that indicated the external link should remain (as well as several censures of his behavior), he has continued to revert the page in what User:Fox1 called, "a slo-mo revert war."
  • At Neowin, User:Brazil4Linux unilaterally made large changes to the article that no one else supported. When it became clear that consensus was clearly against him, he began churning out an endless array of sockpuppets (for which he has been indefinitely banned, but without success in stopping the sockpuppets). He still occasionally wages a revert war with new accounts or anons.
If your policy was adopted, I'd have been blocked in each of these three incidents, just for doing my part in stopping a single user from hijacking an article. I know the only counter: "someone else can fill in." That just simply isn't true sadly. Editors have lots of concerns to look at, and lesser known articles (like the examples above in particular) simply do not get much traffic, so one tenacious edit warrior can do much to make the article in his image. If every time a sockpuppet or tireless revert warrior redid his changes, I had to go and post to WP:ANI or grab people at their talk pages, my efficiency (as well as many others) would be slowed to a crawl. That is not an exaggeration. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 01:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you point out. In my case, a page was changed without consensus. As I tried to work with the other editors on changes, on reported me to 3RR and got me blocked. The user stated I undone their changes, but that is not true as the page was originally a different version that was stated to have some consensus already. In likeness, you edited those pages because of lack of consensus. I tried to incorporate changes. While I was blocked, the page changed even more. After a few days, we tried a discussion. I tried to edit the page again. Every edit I did was undone. I didn't do the same edit, but after four different edits, I was reported again and blocked by WMC. He obviously doesn't believe my case and has choosen sides. I don't have anything against WMC, but it is obvious he choosen sides. The policy says we really can't bring up the history, which makes it harder to debate. Any evidence where the policy fails becomes useless. Given that WMC blocked me in under 10 minutes from the time the entry was posted on the AN/3RR, I don't doubt he will block me just as fast just because it is "me." The original change above about being once reverted is very appropriate for such situation. — Dzonatas 15:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a really bad idea to try to weaken the 3RR policy simply because you keep getting blocked for violating it. Jayjg (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


Proposal for equality

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)
Completely reject per my reason above. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ditto William M. Connolley 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Calton | Talk 00:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"will be mocked mercilessly"

Under "Intent of the policy," it says that "dredging up old incidents [...] will be mocked mercilessly." While I certainly think that such actions are completely pointless and perhaps even worthy of mockery, this seems like a pretty blatant contradiction of WP:Civility. It doesn't seem like a good idea in the least to have one policy contradict another, even if only in appearance (WP:IAR aside). If no one disagrees, I'm going to delete this bullet. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 03:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Be bold.--Urthogie 07:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I said I would do it after allowing time for comment. I decided to err on the side of caution since this is policy. It explicitly states to "make sure that changes you make to this policy reflect consensus before you make them." Seeing as no one has yet objected and someone has supported the deletion, I'm going ahead. If anyone disagrees, please discuss here before reverting it back. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 11:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I also deleted the supposed quote by Douglas Adams for the same reason as above and replaced it with a more neutrally toned statement. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 11:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It's ok to edit the letter of policy as long as you don't change the spirit of the policy, or change it enough that it looks like you changed the spirit of it. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A few comments:

  • As the proposer of the original wording, I'd like to point out that my intent in making a list was to offer a menu of possiblities for other editors to choose from, to select which of them to use: I didn't expect that ALL of them would be chosen, and the last two were really intended as joke choices.
  • It's not a "supposed quote" by Douglas Adams: hell, I think it shows up in the movie version.
  • That said, I like the format, and like how it builds to the final item on the list, so I've restored the Adams quote, which I think light-heartedly expresses thefutility of trying to use rules as some kind of club.

--Calton | Talk 00:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • "...really intended as joke choices" - I have a sense of humor (some would even call it "good" but that's unverifiable), however, I don't know if a policy page is the best place for that sort of statement. Mainly, the worry is that someone without a good sense of humor would look at it and take it the wrong way.
  • "It's not a 'supposed quote'..." - I only said "supposed" because I didn't know it myself; I wasn't intending to cast any doubt on its credibility.
  • "...like how it builds..." - I'm a little worried that it still seems to condone ridicule, particularly by "building" up to it, since it might give the impression that any reaction up to and including mockery is allowable. Again, it wouldn't really bother me if it wasn't in a policy page.
I'm certainly not going to revert it back now, seeing as there's disagreement here, but it'd be nice to hear some other opinions. If other editors think it's innocuous, I'm fine with leaving it as is (I'm just glad that "will be mocked mercilessly" stayed removed). -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 01:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"...in whole or in part..."

In this edit, SlimVirgin altered the 3RR rule. In this edit, he altered the nutshell synopsis. I am challenging these edits for the reasons below.

This change opens an enormous loop-hole in the rule, but I see no evidence that "consensus was reached", or that "changes [made] to this policy reflect consensus before [they were made]". It appears that it was simply changed, without establishing that such practice either did not in fact violate official policy, or that it wasn't only in more careful consideration of finer language below (i.e. that adding the in whole or in part to the nushell and first lines wasn't an oversimplification of official policy. I will wait for further comment or proof that the community has in fact accepted this, then revert again. In principle this discussion should have preceeded William M. Connolley's revert.

As to the danger of opening this particular door, many benign edits would constitute partial reverts, but this overbroad change makes them all subject to 3RR, bypassing the criteria elaborated below for careful exceptions. This is not supported by any discussion in evidence that I know of. Note that WP:REVERT only acknowledges whole reverts.

StrangerInParadise 15:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, SlimVirgin was clarifying what was already longstanding policy, and which has continued to be policy for months after that. 3RR warriors are particularly adept at trying to "game" the rule, by introducing controversial edits which have slight differences, but the same overall meaning. In practice many editors have been, and continue to be, blocked for gaming the rule. Admins do need to use judgement, and they continue to do so - in practice, this clause is only invoked for blatant gaming. Oh, and the fact that it has been in place since August of 2005 without challenge indicates that the community does, in fact, accept this. Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's my impression that this is really just laying out current practice. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Jayjg and Kf. Which was why I restored it. Also, while adding the text merely formalises practice, *removing* it would have strong (and very bad) policy implications William M. Connolley 17:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

I object to the change by SlimVirgin made on 2006-1-1, also, and further remove. It is a loop-hole, and it needs to be clarified. The other text removed that didn't fit the edit description:

Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word.

It appears well intended, but in practice it became abused and misused. I doubt the 3RR rule is meant to qualify people as revert warriors, but I have seen such passage as "you undone the work of another editor" to thwart actions. It makes the admins pick sides of whose work was undone. Instead, don't pick sides and just protect the page. No need to block unless it is a clear case of vandalism. Further consensus is needed. — Dzonatas 17:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes administrators "pick sides." If each editor undoes the other's work more than three times in 24 hours, they're blocked. That's it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
& its beter than protecting the page. One disruptive user should not be able to force page protection William M. Connolley 17:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
As per Katefan0 and William M. Connolly. This is straightforward common sense and longstanding policy; it's rather unfortunate that an individual who is continually getting blocked for 3RR feels he has to change policy to avoid getting blocked. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree here with Dzonatas' point, and respond to that of Jayjg that gaming the rule is not possible due to the guidelines, but changing the rule at its root, as SlimVirgin has done, is a large step towards the position that admins may block users for any reason. The notion of partial revert would encompass an entire spectrum of benign edits one might have made, including but not limited to,

  • good-faith edits in compromise
  • reverts with explicit or tacit acceptance of revertee

...which might occur before the one revert that an admin may choose to punish. The general change in rule is too broad, and not apparently supported by policy or popular acceptance. The existing subsequent guidelines are more that enough to combat any gaming by revert-warriors. Admin's don't merely need to use judgement, they are required to do so, a requirement which SlimVirgin's edit effectively eliminates.

StrangerInParadise 17:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for saying this, but that reasoning is just silly. I doubt anyone would block someone for 3RR for inserting true compromise language that had a consensus among warring editors, or an edit that otherwise had the acceptance of warring parties. Administrators must always use their judgment. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Katefan0's earlier statement, a good example on this page is "if you didn't violate the rule..." as stated by jayjg. There is really no final judgement if someone violated the rule or not, as the policy does not lay down strict qualifiers. As suggested, use common-sense is the rule of thumb. Just because an admin chooses to block someone does not mean that person has actually violated the 3RR by spirit. As StrangerInParadise pointed out, we should assume good-faith, and I bet that also means that we should assume the edits were done in good faith and with good faith. It is hard to justify that someone assumed good-faith if a label of "violator" or "revert warrior" is used. I can understand if we use such terms to justify an extreme, but such justification has not been debated here or as of yet. Are we suppose to assume good faith "in part or in whole"? In response to Katefan0's last comment, please do not call another's comment "silly," as facts will do just fine to argue your point. — Dzonatas 18:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by someone not violating 3RR "in spirit." Do you mean that they didn't realize they were violating 3RR? If that's the case, they can always email the blocking admin and plead their case. Most administrators would in all likelihood just lift the block with an admonishment about edit warring. Otherwise, I don't know what you're getting at. Purposefully violating 3RR, knowing that the rule is there, isn't a good faith action, no matter what the substance of the text is (barring reverting simple vandalism). · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
"In spirit" is in contrast to "by the letter." Since the policy tries to avoid instruction creep, it is hard to go "by the letter."
To have to plead your case to the admin is really a harsh rule. I doubt we can avoid it, however. There could be other routes.
Because Wikipedia is not a court, it seems to imply that wikipedians with admin powers should not be judges.
Why should anybody be blocked when the 3RR is just raised on a single article? The block essentially keeps them from the rest of Wikipedia. If the wikipedian is not involved in any other revert or likely edit dispute in another article, then surely a block is excessive, as the wikipedian clearly demonstrates civility with other articles. — Dzonatas 18:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Why? So they get a chance to cool off and re-think their approach. And it's odd that earlier you were proposing that one editor get blocked for four reverts, and subsequent editors get blocked for 2 reverts, yet now you're saying the 3RR violator shouldn't be blocked at all. There's no consistency here, except that you want to give some sort of advantage to 3RR violators. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There's also no way to block someone from a specific article technically, so that's something of a moot point- Additionally, if someone agrees to stop reverting, then the problem is solved, and they are not blocked.--Sean Black (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think getting specific is fine, and goes to the intent of 3RR. I'd much rather have this than people arguing technical loopholes by leaving a period here or a space there when they revert (or even worse, leaving incoherent sentence fragments, which wouldn't be a "whole" revert). I agree with statements made above: I simply don't see any administrators banning a contributor who's trying to submit genuine compromise language. That administrators must use their judgment here to make that call is a good argument for making sure we only take truly experienced administrators who have seen enough edits to know the difference, but I don't think it's a compelling argument against "whole or in part." JDoorjam Talk 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an argument against the paragraph that includes "undoing the work of other editors." The "in part or in whole" needs clarity, also. The policy is subject to abuse as written, which is either intentional or unintentional. — Dzonatas 19:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Getting specific seems to be fine only when giving admins more power, but not to constrain that power, when (inevitably) ignore the rules, instruction creep and Wikilawyering are tossed out. The fact is, Slim's edits were made without consensus, and the notion but no admin would really abuse that is not a counter-argument. The fact is, more than a few do, and no need for the change in language has been established. The text should be reverted until there is real consensus and a real need. StrangerInParadise 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might be a good idea to revert it except for the fact that there is need, and there is consensus, and always has been. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to register my agreement with Katefan0, Jayjg, William M. Connolley, et al.. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus needed

I removed this text, but it was restored. I obviously objected to it, but, as you see, no discussion of why it was restored in on this talk page as of yet.

Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word.

There seems to be a consensus that additional text doesn't match the edit summary of SlimVirgin's "light copy edit". This is in likeness to William's statement that he made that he thought my edit summary didn't match my edit. Ironical.

Perhaps, what I added should be restored also. The point to it seems to comes clear about now: discussion.

It is not obvious why such additional text was added. I suggest we remove the text again until we find consensus on a neutral point of view over the text. — Dzonatas 18:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading the above, I see plenty of reasons given why the text was added, and why it was restored. Because the three-revert rule is designed to prevent edit wars, not to entitle one to three reverts per day, making complex reverts (that is, reverts that take place over more than one edit), and repeatedly inserting the same text even if it's not identical, and so on, should most certainly be covered by the rule. Very few people have objected to it, and numerous blocks taking it into account have been made with virtualy no controversy. I see community consensus that this should be part of this policy.--Sean Black (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It is obviously part of policy, officially since last August, and unofficially long before that; the only people who object to it consistently are those who are trying to game the 3RR in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow Jayjg -- that is a harsh assumption. I objected to it, so does that mean you have assumed I am one of those "only people" that "game the system?" — Dzonatas 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's hardly an assumption, since you admitted you'd been blocked more than once for 3RR violations doing partial reverts. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This stigmatization is part of why 3RR blocks should be rare, and carefully considered. Admins are cops, those who ever get the block for any reason become perps, y'know one of those. No one cares whether it was justified, complainers just look more guilty. So, Katefan0's idea that, if that's the case, they can always email the blocking admin and plead their case. Most administrators would in all likelihood just lift the block with an admonishment about edit warring is a bit Polyanna (I'm sure he'll pardon my saying so). StrangerInParadise 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Except that in practice that's exactly what happens; if you e-mail the admin and plead your case, with a promise to stop reverting, you're almost always unblocked. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The text was objected. There is not a complete community consensus. If idleness, in part or in whole, is a qualifier for community consensus, then I was unjustly blocked by two and only accounts of being blocked. I tried to incorporate ideas into a version that stood for quite awhile, and a couple others wanted to drastically change the article. It's ironical in relation to this, pragmatically. — Dzonatas 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the text above was only inserted a month and a half ago, unlike the August 2005 changes. — Dzonatas 19:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That text has been part of policy for months. It closes a loophole that some people use to get past 3RR violations. It's been recognized by the community with few objections for a long time. The removal of the text is what needs to be discussed and its consensus measured, so for now it least it needs to stay. Sean is exactly right. Rx StrangeLove 19:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't close a loophole, it creates a larger one for admins. There was no discussion I can find, nor any finding that the current guidelines were inadequate. It's like letting the police rewrite the Fourth Amendment at their own discretion. StrangerInParadise 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It was only inserted a month and a half ago: 08:10, 3 January 2006 by SlimVirgin with edit summary "light copy edit".
Why do you keep pretending it was only a month and a half ago? As you well know, it's been explicitly part of the policy since last August[5], and it's always been implictly part of the policy. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:revert it explains that a revert is "identical" in nature. However, the added text that slipped in under a edit summary of "ligh copy edit" completely redefined the policy by a change in meaning to the word "revert." There doesn't seem to be community consensus when there is another article that defines revert differently: "A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time." The loop-hole is when this project page points to Wikipedia:revert in the header but then doesn't agree with itself later in the page with "reverting in this context means...". — Dzonatas 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, this is a mark of how far things have drifted. The notion of partial revert has huge potential for abuse, which is why it should remain in the guidelines (revert-like behaviour) rather than change the core of the rule. That is too broad! StrangerInParadise 20:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It also states on Wikipedia:revert: "Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's one of the possible causes for edit wars." Case in point! — Dzonatas 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's been a strong consensus for this for a long period of time. The fact that a couple of new editors (both started editing in November) have suddently realized it, or gotten stung by it, does not mean that the consensus doesn't exist. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Plus, it's implicit in the following paragraph on purpose of the policy. Edit wars rarely consiste of reversion of an entire article. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
"both started editing in November" is mildly ad hominem (see WP:NPA), and not so useful since I have been around for years and have never been blocked on Wikipedia (assumptions, assumptions). If it is so implicit, isn't the change instruction creep? StrangerInParadise 04:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
"Both started editing in November" is a simply statement of fact, and completely unrelated to WP:NPA, your userid has been editing since November, and I haven't assumed you were blocked. As for making it explicit, it turned out that new editors (like you and Dzonatas) kept objecting to the fact that practical policy wasn't explicit, so it was made explicit. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There was no consensus to remove the tag. I changed it to ActiveDiscuss. — Dzonatas 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There was no consensus to add it, either, it was a unilateral action on your part. Just zis Guy you know? 21:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Some assumptions here have infringed on moral responsibility. — Dzonatas 14:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I know you disagree. The point is, you appear to be alone in that. Look at the intent of the policy; interpretation is quite unambiguous from that. And in any case, 3RR is only one diagnostic of disruptive behaviour - you can be blocked after a single revert if it is particularly contentious. Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Partial reverts have been an issue from day one of this rule. The original solution was to make a judgement based on wether or not the person was gaming the system (in my case done by looking at the user's history and loking at how close a partial revert was to being an outright revert).Geni 22:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

They may have been an issue from day one, but rewriting the core of the rule is an escalation from adding exceptions with careful guidelines to it. It seems to have just happened, without consideration of the ramifications. StrangerInParadise 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was never "re-written"; existing policy was simply made explicit. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the history a bit. It is stated on the talk page of WP:REVERT about the vote for the policy. Back then, revert was actually defined on a "how to revert" basis, which was based on a simple revert. Later, the "how to" changed to the explanation of a simple revert. Now, we clearly have instruction creep with this page [6] and the "revert" page [7], and there are few here that insist it is still policy even after the vote. — Dzonatas 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Explication or clarification of longstanding policy is not "instruction creep". Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dzonatas

Sadly it seems that Dzontas is reverting to type. See (if you can bear it) the long and deeply tedious stuff at Talk:Computer science/Archive 5. Being harmonious, and having used my revert for the day, I'm not going to revert again, but I consider Dzontas's recent additions to the page header as absurd & hope someone else will remove them. William M. Connolley 21:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

Here is the need for a neutral point of view. This discussion has quickly diverged from intent. From my past experience of above from what William wants to point out, I doubt it'll stay on track and to the point. It has been already called that William, and maybe others, think that I have tried to game the system? Why? I just tried to talk it out and be a little bold about it. From all the reversions seen on the project page, I doubt there is a "genuine compromise," as that would mean to me a way to update the pages and not be mocked in any way. It's even worse from someone that is in a position of an admin. What ever happen to "how can I help you clarify this text?" What I see above over the discussions is sudden defensiveness. However, I appreciate those that have tried to help. — Dzonatas 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
As you seem to have taken an interest in being harmonious, I shouldn't have to remind you that an ad hominen on Dzonatas is not WP:NPA. Argue on the merits: my comments deserve it, as do his. StrangerInParadise 00:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Both of your comments have already been rejected by many people. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 13:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Katenfan0 posted to wikien-l for help and declared this an edit-war on the 3RR page. It was a directed audience. — Dzonatas 14:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
False. It was an audience of people interested and (for the most part) experienced in Wikipedia and its policies. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
And it WAS an edit war, stopped by this very rule because of how many people are opposed to your edits. <irony></irony> · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I am open to your view of an edit war. Under the broad definition of an edit war and "in whole and in part" reverts, a high traffic article qualifies as an edit war. The policy, over 3RR, becomes ineffective. Admins have the right to block people on behavior without 3RR, as William has even blocked me under a reason of "general time wasting." There is no need to broaden this policy on behavoir, as it should be just objective on intent. (That is not my original opinion, as I took the time to read the policies and guidelines.) I am not out to "game the system." I have stated it very clearly before: I am against blocks on anybody, and I am for open content, yet I still support blocks to stop active vandalism that disrupts open content (i.e. page blanks, patent nonsense, etc). The 3RR rule seem to have the spirit to keep the article history effective. Page protection can solve that easier than a block. There is no reason to change the 3RR to allow one to scold another, which is where I want to help. The page has become complex ands needs to be simplified somehow, which most likely means to split the page into two or more pages to deal with specific issues. It is kind of globbed together here. — Dzonatas 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I would be interested with what message you brought this to people's attention: I reverted certain problematic changes, was myself reverted, and I then opened discussions, hardly, "an edit-war on the 3RR page".
If the respondants were indeed pulled from "an audience of people interested and (for the most part) experienced in Wikipedia and its policies", then the response is disappointing. A survey of the opposition here, once you remove the accusations ("you want to give some sort of advantage to 3RR violators"), mistatements of fact ("It's my impression that this is really just laying out current practice"), and shear wishful thinking ("in practice, this clause is only invoked for blatant gaming"), there is very little in the way of coherent argument.
  • No one has established necessity: why is this needed over-and-above the original formulation? (Hint: what would anyone get away with if it were not there?)
  • No one has established that this change reflects actual consensus policy (throwing out a biased alert to a channel full of admins, and having them rush in, while impressive, is hardly conclusive)
  • No one (but Dzonatas and I) has even acknowledged— much less discussed— the difference between careful exceptions to 3RR with guidelines, and changing the very core of the rule
  • No one (but Dzonatas and I) has explored the ramifications of the idea of partial reverts, a concept that includes a broad spectrum of benign edits, which ambiguates whether one has in fact violated the rule, simultaneously undermining it's value a an electric fence and enhancing its value as a minefield
  • No one has yet raised that policy on Wikipedia flows to the rest of the community, dozens of Wikis, and so our obligations for careful consideration extend beyond "no one abuses it here— much", even if that were true
  • No one acknowledges that this goes to the heart of NPOV and "anyone can edit", core Foundation issues
The only concern seems to be, "is this going to somehow slow me down from slapping a 3RR block on some guy I think needs a lesson?" I'd like you to stop thinking like cops for a moment, and rather think like Wikipedians. The fact I find myself responding at a section entitled, Dzonatas, as if he were somehow the problem, shows just how unlikely this is.
StrangerInParadise 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ActiveDiscussion template

Clearly the matter of the in whole or in part phrase is under discussion, with valid questions raised (even if ultimately it is decided to affirm the language). Removal of the template is clearly out of order, and could be construed as an attempt to stiffle comment (believe it or not, most Wikipedians don't hang out on IRC). If {{ActiveDiscussion}} is not appropriate, what template would be? It may help to add an optional parameter to indicate the nature of the discussion.

StrangerInParadise 17:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no discussion; just you and D wasting time. No template is needed; don't add one. William M. Connolley 18:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC).
I can respect that there are those that think this a waste of time, however by removing the template, you preclude others from learning of the dispute. If disputes could be wished away, there would be no need of a 3RR rule to begin with. Last I checked, we were also Wikipedians, and have followed process in a matter in which you and others have often not. You claim this is a long-settled matter, but have nothing to suggest that this is so. The matter is in dispute, and those referring to the page should see that recognized. We have raised several issues above, to which no one has given answers. Removing the template immediately as has been done now many times seems very much to be aimed at disuading discussion: how is that not disruption? StrangerInParadise 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
William, he has a point. Wikipedia promotes discussion, and obviously that doesn't mean to generally waste your time on wikipedia as if it were a chat room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzonatas (talk • contribs)

Request for comments

  • 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)

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)
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)
Everyone else does accept it. Please take William's advice. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's some real instruction creep

Dzonatas has removed the semi-definition of a partial revert from Wikipedia:Revert [8]. I daresay this behavior is becoming disruptive. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How is it that your new, unilateral edit takes priority over his revert, where his new edits fall inferior to your reverts? StrangerInParadise 00:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
StrangerInParadise has an excellent point, especially since that "partial revert" was just added a day before without any consensus to add it. Did anybody happen to notice the reply on my talk page and the threat I got?
"Yes, wasting everyone's time. Including removing the part of Wikipedia:Revert which supports the content you want to remove from WP:3RR. Do it again and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" — Dzonatas 13:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup, wasting everybody's time reverting an edit which was evidently made to clarify an otherwise ambiguous situation, in support of an obvious agenda which will fail because the people applying the policies know what they are for and recognise gaming the system when they see it. Just zis Guy you know? 16:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I highly doubt that Wikipedia's policies to block are based on any support to build consensus by oppression. From Wikipedia:Ownership of articles: "You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them." — Dzonatas 13:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Let them. Dont keep reverting their work in whole or in part. Also, don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The harsh reality is, you can be blocked for disruption after any number of reverts from one upwards, depending on what you revert and in what context. People like me have to interpret the rules, and by common consent it's the spirit of the rules which is important in this project, not the letter. So fiddling with the letter is not going to let anyone off the hook, all it's going to do is encourage others to make the same mistake. Edit warring is evil! Just zis Guy you know? 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You have not established how opposing the in whole or in part language is a disruption of Wikipedia. Also, you haven't established that in whole or in part is even needed. Yes, edit wars are evil, yet look at how this has evolved: We point out certain problems (including a radical, unilateral edit without evidence of discussion, however benign SV's intentions were), you run around making unilateral edits to cover the problems up, then accuse us of edit warring. Have any of you paused for a moment to consider that you might be wrong? The in whole or in part language clearly increases ambiguity. Could all of you be resisting it because deleting it clarifies your errors? StrangerInParadise 17:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's easy enough to understand: what is the policy for? It's to stop edit wars. So reverting in whole or in part is the problem. Simple, really. Just zis Guy you know? 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not so simple as that. Perhaps you skimmed over some of the more important language: the term partial revert encompasses an entire spectrum of benign edits. Changing 3RR to include in whole or in part at its root comes pretty close to "admins may block for any reason they see fit, by calling it 3RR". Worse, the reaction here should indicate that very few admins want to hear about a wrongful block, or consider the finer points of common sense, assume good faith, etc. The damage this does to equality of access far outweighs the risk of an edit war continuing just a bit longer. You should take this seriously. Because you have no intention of abusing such unlimited power doesn't mean others don't. StrangerInParadise 21:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg:JzG: I'm glad you agree the spirit of the 3RR is to stop edit wars. The rest is negotiable. — Dzonatas 21:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
JzG is not me, and I am not JzG. And the spirit of 3RR is not just to stop edit wars; it's also to stop one editor from taking control of the content of a page against a broad consensus of other editors. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Their is already a "Ownership of articles" policy about control of content, and its enforcement can be established on that page. — Dzonatas 02:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
StrangerInParadise: You have a point there. I further assert that not all the admins here are ignorant to the potential abuse. Some of them that are active on this page are being hard, and that is just their way. A couple others here need to learn how to be a little bit more helpful. Most others are being pretty neutral and helpful. We must realize we have new admins and new potentials to be blocked by mistake. The 3RR is not punitive, and the blocks made in mistake shouldn't be either. The page does have some quirks, and by consensus it is actually bad policy. In fact, there is already a vote that establishes that the 3RR has loopholes by its nature. Ultimately, a new policy page to stop edit wars is in need, and there are attempts to do it. Success is if we can negotiate a few fixes that help prevent action in a loopholes, and we move on to a new policy to effectively stop edit wars that eventually replaces this one. Such new policy requiries a devolved responsibility to avoid mistakes by blind judgement. — Dzonatas 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It turns out that almost all abuse of the 3RR comes not from abusively blocking admins, but rather from editors (like yourself) who try to game the rule, then get blocked, and then complain about "admin abuse". Very few go as far as trying to re-write the policy so that they can continue to game the rule, though; you are almost unique in that respect. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Would you stop with the personal labels on me and not accuse me of an intention to "game the system." I have stated that the actions of the block upon me are questionable. I disagreed with them. I've noted other things, but I haven't labeled any as an "abuser" of power. I hope you see this and retract your statement. Otherwise, why not bring out the facts and less accusations? At least I have come here to redirect those concerns on the actual policy text and away from the person themselves. The text I added to this page, for which you consider me as to "game the system," was actually suggested by another admin. I feel if that admin added the text, it would have stayed. — Dzonatas 02:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Correct. In whole or in part is right: by the third revert it should be obvious to all that more discussion is needed on the Talk page. Just zis Guy you know? 00:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, Dzonatas didn't raise the point, I did: can you explain why you would assign me this motive of trying to game the system? Secondly, none of the points I've raised have been addressed on the merits. The behaviour of certain admins in this discussion— especially the blind assignment of motives— does little credit to the assertion that we should just give you carte blanche and trust your judgement. StrangerInParadise 22:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Dzonatas opened this can of worms by trying to unilaterally change longstanding policy with this edit. He further made his motivations clear, so it's hardly an issue of blind assignment of motives (and I haven't assigned any motives to you). Finally, your points have indeed been addressed on their "merits"; that you fail to recognize or accept that is your own issue. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, where? I raised a list of several unaddressed points, see above. Show me a response that doesn't equate to, Piss off, we speak for everyone, we like it this way, your should just trust us— and stop trying to game the system!? StrangerInParadise 23:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Dzonatas has now taken it upon himself to remove the definition of a partial revert from Wikipedia:Revert and replace it with a link to Wikipedia:Partial revert, where he has attempted to define it himself (though mostly it's an enormous treatise on how to revert). · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I undid it :-) William M. Connolley 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The happy smile of a revert warrior, William? StrangerInParadise 17:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but sadly only a WP:1RR one, so I don't get so many thrills nowadays William M. Connolley 21:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see that you've taken this position of 1RR seriously. Have you considered how difficult it is to pose an edit in compromise that doesn't qualify as a 3RR-countable partial revert? In a sense, in whole or in part undermines 1RR. StrangerInParadise 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You keep failing to assume good faith as regards the actions of admins, and implying that they would not use good discretion in applying this policy. Both are errors. Jayjg (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
They must be some sort of error of faith, for they are certainly not empirical errors. Not even on this page. The benefit of the doubt is to fall to editors, not blocking admins. StrangerInParadise 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The interesting thing is that it appears to be Dzonatas who is revert-warring on the page; yet just a few days ago he was trying to modify policy to insist that no-one ever revert a page more than once. Inconsistent, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I took the suggestion of another admin and added the comment to suggest discussion after being reverted once. That is a big difference then to only revert a page once. The 3RR page is unclear because some editors get accused for their edits while others are accepted, yet both groups edit the same. — Dzonatas 02:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In reply to Katefan0, that does not even come close to describe my edit. All I did was put a link to Wikipedia:partial revert and update the hint to reflect that link. I didn't remove any definition on that edit. On that "partial revert" page, I copied, pasted, and modified it to to reflect the steps of a partial revert instead of a entire revert. The new page reflected the same exact definition that was added by jayjg a day before. How do you think I removed a definition with that edit. — Dzonatas 19:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The information you added was mostly duplicated, and really just another example of WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Explain how it is a WP:POINT. The paragraph that seems to explain the spirit of it states, "Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work." I am confused when I see editors on here take "unilateral action," or edit first before discussion, when they also demand consensus first. Katefan0 and you, jayjg, think that I have made unilateral action? Are you very positive that is what I have tried to do? By Katefan0's statement above, it does not even suggest the correct action what I have tried. I have tried to make improvements, and every one has been reverted. I have not seen anybody try to take my actions and ask "how can I help you improve your edit? Let's discuss this so we understand what each other wants. Instead, what I have seen is "my way or the highway" type of edits on my contributions, and it hasn't always been that way.
Someone stated I only been on since November 2005. Actually, my first edit was around March 2005. I moved away from my other username because I didn't want to be immediately associated with someone who has just been publically ridiculed and who had his daughter's name made fun of. (And, you can see my wikistressed response.) Under my old username, I used to "chat" more on these talk pages. Under this username, I don't chat as much, but I do try to stay to the points.
Someone thinks my only goal to the "game the system." However, that is not true. Why are you and others hating? — Dzonatas 00:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it strange how it's always the admins who are evil despots standing in the way of Wikipedia's true mission to help everybody promote whatever cause they happen to be following, and policy and precedent are just smokescreens to distract from The Truth As Revealed, which Wikipedia should be promoting for the good of humanity. Or something. Just zis Guy you know? 00:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it strange how certain admins can never have enough power in their assertion of all that is True and Neutral and Good? By criminalizing any that would resist you, then ridiculing them when they protest, NPOV (not to mention policy and precedent) becomes pretty much anything you say it is. StrangerInParadise 01:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
JzG, where did that come from? — Dzonatas 02:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Posted at the Village Pump

I've asked others to come and weigh in. StrangerInParadise 02:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Negotiation

Detail paragraph

  • There is a redundancy:
"Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word."
We should remove it. Besides it being accusatory and not of sound neutrality, there is already a paragraph that reads:
"Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part, or that add something new. Use common sense."

— Dzonatas 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about it being "not of sound neutrality". Policies and guidelines are not subject to the NPOV policy; unlike the articles in Wikipedia, which are descriptive, policies and guidelines are prescriptive.

A policy is not required to be neutral towards points of view that conflict with the consensus arrived at in the writing of the policy. In specific particulars where there is lack of consensus, describing various editors' interpretations of the policy in an NPOV manner can be useful and illustrative for readers trying to understand how to apply the policy. But you and StrangerInParadise have not made a solid case that there was lack of consensus on the full-versus-partial question in the past, and we certainly do not have a consensus to change to some other stance today. SlimVirgin's edit seemed to simply be clarifying that long-held but poorly-described consensus. So long as we assume that consensus existed on the point (which I think the great majority of participants on this talk page do), the neutrality question does not arise.

All that said, the two paragraphs do seem redundant to me. Personally, I think the first one is better (I do not read any accusation, perhaps you can elaborate as to where you see it), but the injunction to "use common sense" is useful as well. Perhaps best to merge them? --TreyHarris 04:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

TreyHarris, thank you for your reply. I am most grateful for any reply on the merits, which has been in short supply here, as evidenced from most of this page. Briefly, I can find no discussion of the ramifications of the language change, so what consensus? It is as if the police one day said, people don't complain with much success when we break into their houses, so we deleted the Fourth Amendment. That is hardly consensus. My point was that, by disadvantaging editors who in good faith resist changes in language in an article with edits in compromise, as the in whole or in part change does, the principles of NPOV and anyone can edit are fundamentally undermined. Also, no compelling need for so broad a change has been established, despite endless cries of gaming the system. StrangerInParadise 15:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • TreyHarris, thanks for your reply; It is helpful. We could merge them but with a change that is needed as to the "sound neutrality" bit.

I beleieve the phrase "undoing the work of another editor" has been misunderstood. I have seen it used in attempt to match any kind of edit as a 3RR type revert because it "undid the work another editor." It allows some to claim ownership to articles. Once a editor has inserted text, that editor could potentially use 3RR to continually reinstate that text. I doubt that was the spirit of the 3RR policy.

It is not that the spirit of the policy itself is not neutral, but it is how it gets applied to articles by how it is currently written. Your right that the nuetral point of view is applied to articles. This, however, has played a role in what makes an article neutral. The phrase, while it technically works to a degree, does not convey the intent well. I tried to delete the first "detail" paragraph. Since it was restored, we should merge or come up with a better paragraph.

There is also the the attempt to use the "long-held but poorly described consensus" as a means to justify the same consensus on any edit to the policy after which such consensus was originally established. That is unfair. The burden that you have mentioned on StrangerInParadise on me also needs to be applied equally to others that want to defend past attempts to clarify the policy. I believe, as time has past, the pragmatic evidence weighs against the attempts to clarify the policy. Unfortunately, there are statements in the policy that act like a catch-all to rid of such evidence, and we can see such discussion above in attempt to clarify that also. With that statement in place, it cast a serious doubt that such consensus still exists, as any attempt to question policy, or "reports dredging up old incidents," may have been "ultimately ignored." That is not the proper way to maintain consensus.

Such phrase seems to want to stop "tit-for-tat" measures even when the admin passes blind judgement to block whoever got reported. It creates a race condition where two editors revert each other and one finds reason to report the other one first. When the other one gets unblocked and feels the reason for the block was unjustified, there is no simple way to report such incident since most attempts are "utimately ignored." Meanwhile, the editor not blocked continues to changed the article. When the editor that was blocked comes back and tries to restore some work previously done or incorporate changes ("genuine compromises"), the editor that reported the other one again uses the 3RR policy to thwart such attempts. Such uses include "don't undo the works on another editor" despite the fact that the other editor already had worked on the article. Such uses also include the instances where someone publically states that the other editor has "violated" the 3RR, and any edit by such previously blocked editor are aggravated.

Over just being blocked twice out of the 3RR, I feel like I have to ask for permission to modify an article within such unequally lateral demands to "gain consensus." We clearly see not everybody has to gain consensus before an edit is made. I highly doubt that the spirit of the 3RR is to allow editors to use it as a weapon to influence another editors ability to edit. It was meant to stop edit wars. Period.

Since we have some consensus to merge the two paragraph, here is my proposal, which I have also tried to extend and clarify based on arguments above:

"Reverting text, in this context, is enumerable towards measures to stop an edit war. To revert an article simply means to restore some or all of the text of an article exactly as the text existed in a historic version of that article. If a revert is done with undue consideration of other editors' attempts to consecutively edit the article or with undue consideration of attempts to build consensus for a revision of the article, especially on the article's talk page, editors may enumerate that revert as proof an edit war exists. If done excessively within a day, a measure to stop the edit war may be invoked, which may mean that someone gets blocked no matter who reported the incident.
When an edit war exists, editors may want a dispute resolution. With this policy, its effect is to stop the edit war, so that the dispute resolution may evolve. It is not a means to force consensus or allow three or less reverts in a day. It is also not a means to get people blocked and take advantage of that time to settle on a consensus while they are blocked. Most likely, everybody involved in a consensus with someone that got blocked will have to wait until everybody is unblocked, which is at most a day, to properly continue the consensus."

What does everybody propose?

— Dzonatas 14:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we not use your proposed text, since it a lengthy polemic that is far less comprehensible than the text it is supposed to replace. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If you object to that one, can you propose actual text yourself that addresses everybody's concern? — Dzonatas 20:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The current text is perfectly clear, and accurately reflects longstanding policy. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. We have addressed reasons above of why the policy is not clear enough. The archives of the 3RR page cleary show how the policy has been applied inconsistently over time. There is misuse of the policy to present it as borderline punitive. If the policy was merely to educate and inform once one reverts past its limit, there would not be wikipedians here that accuse each other of "gameing the system" or likewise on the instance to be bold, revert, and discuss. Instead, I would expect to see a way to address concerns. We found a resistance that protects a mode of conduct attributed to the current version of the policy. On the same ground of how we must accept imperfection in article pages, we simply must accept that there is also imperfection in the policy pages. — Dzonatas 20:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Please recognize that your claim that the policy is not clear enough is not the same thing as a proof of same. No policy is perfect, but your re-write would both change its meaning and intent, and make it far less clear. One cannot cure imperfection by introducing even greater imperfection. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Editors have changed the page in many minor ways over time, and, together, this has made one major change. There must have been something clear about it before when "wide acceptance" was established before all the minor changes. That "wide acceptance" was before partial reverts. Furthermore, I did not claim that mine was a perfect replacement, and I hope you do realize that you stated it as a "greater imperfection" without any distinct reasons or, as you stated, of proof of same. At least I took a step further and tried to give an example and something to work on. Again, it is an attempt to address the concerns noted above. Now, I have patiently waited almost six days for at least a meaningful proposal, from everyone that has reverted any change that StrangerInParadise and I have made, in their defense of the 3RR page. What I have found is that most hit upon personal characteristics rather than debate about the article, which concludes that they weren't really serious about their defense of the 3RR page.
Jayjg has gone beyond that with more seriousness; however, Jayjg did make a statement that says, paraphrased from wikien-l, if StrangerInParadise and me are successful in a policy change that we wont be able to get blocked anymore, so that has made me question the seriousness.
For the "in whole or in part," the problem is clear, with the current text, where any edit looks like a partial revert. It's like the glass is half empty or half full, as to what part of the edit is the reverted text. I tried to make it very clear on the revert page, but those attempts were quickly reverted. There is obviously a dispute about it. The dispute is simply stated -- any edit looks like a revert under the text of the "in whole or in part" bit. What part of an edit is the revert? The part from the edit's previous state? Or what part of an edit undoes another editor since it seems like they all do? Anybody who adds completely new text to a document may be considered as a revert because it undoes the work of another editor. That is just plain confusion. We can use "common sense," but "undoes another editor" is not about common sense because it is a judgment call who really has been "undone." There are plently of examples, besides just StrangerInParadise and me, who complain about such judgement calls on reverts or edits on wikien-l. Revert can be clearly defined or at least stated simplier. It could be done without the ambiguosity with the "in whole or in part" text and still include forms of "partial reverts." — Dzonatas 10:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section header

I propose that you examine your recent contributions [9] 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).
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 [10], 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)

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)
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)
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)

My proposal

· Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest end-run attempt

Wikipedia:Community assent. FYI · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Historia

I found a some versions of interest:

— Dzonatas 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

in whole or part continued

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)

1RR for not logged users ?

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)

No. Unless we have no choice we should avoid treating IPs as second class editors.Geni 11:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
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)

Revised Policy

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)

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)

Collusion

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)

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)
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)

Is there a difference between collusion and co-operation? If I see an editor insisting on a change for the worse, and I know that another editor agrees with me on this, are you saying that I shouldn't contact her to alert her to the situation?

That three editors are "colluding" means that three editors hold the same view; that one editor uses three accounts (or three IP addresses) means that one editor holds that view. There's surely a significant difference here? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

Statute of limitations

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)

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)
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)
Hello Reddi William M. Connolley 21:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Tweak on treating all users equally

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)

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)
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)

Just to make sure people haven't missed it, I draw your attention to this [11] edit I made to the 3RR header, in particular I added:

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)

There is no right to three reverts

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
I completely disagree, for all the reasons I've already stated. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

One editor's "disruption" is another editors valid edit. I suggest less discretion and more hard and fast limits. If three is too many, then lower it to two. But stop confusing things. Right now it's a "3rr rule, unless [insert name here] in admin role thinks you are disruptive, in which case, even one revert could get you blocked". Such expressions are not "rules", they are vague crib notes relating to discretionary fiat. Merecat 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

How about this as a compromise:

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)

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)
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)
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)

3RR without verification

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)

Realise that its an article content question, not a 3RR question... William M. Connolley 21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Current revision is NOT consensus

Just pointing out that the current revision is not consensus. The previous version is the one that has consensus. I just stopped reverted while the person in favor of the new revision has not. However the current revision is the one that needs to build consensus. I will revert again in 24 if consensus for the current revision is not built. In reality this version should be reverted immediately until consensus is built, but I will give it 24 hours. --MateoP 23:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And I, for one, will revert back, because it IS the de facto consensus, period/full-stop, as a review of the WP:AN/3RR and its archives would show. It's not "a person"'s opinion, as you disingenously put, but the evolved consensus to deal with those trying to wikilawyer or game the system. Don't like it? Tough. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what you are talking about, since you chose to use pronouns such as "it". What is it? The 3RR? I am referring to the current revision which has the inclusion of a line that didn't exist prior to a couple of days ago. The inclusion of those lines has been controversial since it was included, and therefore should not be included until consensus has been reached.
Consensus is built on the talk pages, not through edit warring, so don't do it. --MateoP 03:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know what you are talking about, since you chose to use pronouns such as "it". Is English your second language? Do you know the normal function of pronouns? Hint: they are used as a substitute for the main subject previously mentioned -- you know, the allegedly controversial sentence which you yourself bring up in the sentence after complaining you don't know what I'm talking about. Claim and contradiction, separated only by a period: rare to see, but we have a sighting here.
The inclusion of those lines has been controversial since it was included. Really? By whom? Might it have something to do with this?:
22:45, 1 January 2006 Izehar blocked "MateoP (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three revert rule violation on Iowa class battleship)
Consensus is built on the talk pages, not through edit warring... Considering that my post was in reponse to your threat to begin edit-warring -- citing by implication your erroneous belief that the 3 reverts a day is an entitlement -- it's hypocritical or just plain funny to see you tell someone else not to edit war.
...so don't do it.. Too bad, so sad. --Calton | Talk 04:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The activediscuss tags are also completely inappropriate and clog up the policy page. The only one who feels the need to actively discuss this is MateoP; consensus on this established practice is clear, including from an arbitrator who reverted MateoP's deletion once more. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0

What is your specific problem with my compromise suggestion. Here is the original controversial part:

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.

And here is my suggestion:

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.

What specifically is different that concerns you?? --MateoP 20:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already answered this question above. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Not with specifics. Unless I have specifics, I can not make a better revision. Here is what you said above:
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.
This is vague. You don't say what about my proposal "fails to connect the idea", only assert that it does. In reality, my proposal says that users can be blocked during disputes for offenses other than 4 reverts. That is saying that 3 reverts or fewer can still get you blocked. Unless you give specifics, I can not make a better proposal.
I have two primary concerns with the original: 1)The lack of the "always" before "acceptable" seems discouraging towards reverting at all. 2) The second sentences picks out two offenses "edit warring" and "disruption" and doesn't use them as examples, but rather gives they impression that they are the only offenses during dispute (other than 3RR) that can result in a block, setting them up as more important or graver offenses, which they are not. My revision remedied this problem by presenting disruption as an example of an offense that can result in blocking during disputes (other than 3RR), but of course not the only one. If you have a compromise proposal that addresses my concerns, please present it. --MateoP 21:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
For me, the main problem is that it's in no way a "compromise": it removes the original sentence's meaning completely and substitutes an entirely different, generic and vague, rationale for admin action.
P.S.: "Controversial" doesn't mean "I don't like it". --Calton | Talk 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Calton has essentially underscored the point I made above. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You've given me nothing specific to allow me to make a new version that meets both of our concerns. I can't rectify your concerns if you don't make them plainly stated. I have made my concerns plainly stated above above (in points labelled 1 and 2), so if you would like to come up with a new revision that meets both of our concerns, please do so. Because I can not go any further from here because of a lack of information. --MateoP 22:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


You have enaugh information. a)Most people are happy with the policy and wish not to make any changes to it. b)It describes current practise. Agathoclea 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another thing... userpage warnings

I removed the bit about the userpage warnings... I'm not very happy with it. If nothing else, it begs the question of what is a "valid" warning William M. Connolley 11:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ask any admin or the author to remove the warning. That would solve the "question". I have had talkpages deleted because I made an erronious judgement before Agathoclea 11:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am with you on this one. That's an absurd exception. A user should be able to remove anything from their own talk page that they wish. This is a needless rule. --MateoP 17:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not until there is warning page only that the user cannot edit himself. If warnings or blocks are wrongful or outdated yes. If current and relevant - no. Agathoclea 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
William M. Connolley, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism. Meanwhile I'm restoring the removed language; your edit will require quite a bit more that just one editor's opinion to remain standing. AvB ÷ talk 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It's the user's own talk page. There is no reason to require that he leave "current and relevant" warnings up. Can you provide even one reason for this exception/rule? Even one? --MateoP 20:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This topic gets debated from time to time; I don't think there's ever been a significant consensus on whether or not 3RR applies to removing administrator warnings. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
So far there has always been sufficient support to keep this part of these policies. By the way, anyone can issue warnings, not just admins. And removing warnings from one's talk page, regardless of who has posted them, is risky (even when 100% sure they are undeserved). Let alone breaking the 3RR rule in the process. (I hope it will be clear to everyone reading this that 3RR still applies to talk pages; vandalism never trumps policy.) AvB ÷ talk 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
As the other editor said check out WP:VANDALISM#Types_of_vandalism there is states that

"Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." therefore it follows that the user has no right to remove. Actually the 3RR rule is a bit of overkill, as the User can be blocked on vandalizm anyway. Agathoclea 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't apply here since that specifies vandalism and 3RR is for reverts, not for vandalism. Of course that rule is absurd in and of itself, but for the sake of this debate, you have to make indepedent reasons why removal of 3RR warnings counts as a revert. The burden of proof is on you. --MateoP 21:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert = bring back to a previous version. Removing any content is just that. If you want the content of policy changed go and do a RFC. Agathoclea 21:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

MateoP, I see you have reverted to the disputed language. That is not how these things are done on Wikipedia. Once an edit has been reverted, like I did with William M. Connolley's edit, reverting to it is called edit warring. The correct approach is to try and reach a consensus both on this talk page and at Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism.
Repeated changes of an official policy instead of building consensus are automatically classified as vandalism . From Wikipedia:Vandalism: Official policy vandalism—Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. I recommend that you use this opportunity to end this vandalism by restoring the original version. AvB ÷ talk 22:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is already endorsed by WP:VAND

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)

New wording on counting

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)

Wikipedia admins for the most part know how to count.Geni 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Clarification on counting reverts of different threads

I would like to suggest that a brief note be added to reinforce to users that the 3RR counts all reverts even if they are of unrelated threads. For the longest time, I was under the mistaken impression that what was not allowed was reverting the same disputed edit more than 3 times in 24 hours, when in fact any revert of any number of unrelated threads count towards the total. The policy as it now reads is technically complete, which is why when I made this mistake myself I decided not to contest my block, and I apologized. Nevertheless, a brief addition of a few words to the policy page to help prevent an honest lapse such as I committed, would in my opinion be very helpful. --AladdinSE 14:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A fair point William M. Connolley 15:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, for some definition of honest :-) . The actual policy is "no edit warring". 3 reverts in 24 hours is the electric fence and the extreme outer limit to the tolerance, not a licence. Kim Bruning 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting anything contrary to that.--AladdinSE 08:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No edit warring

Can we add that to "This policy in a nutshell":

3 reverts in 24 hours is the electric fence and the extreme outer limit to the tolerance, not a licence.

There are quite a lot of WP:MEDCAB disputes where people assumed they had a license to revert up to three times (occasionally even including the third revert). This way the 3RR rule even has the negative effect of making people assume they have this license when they otherwise might apply common sense and avoid reverting. --Fasten 18:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? It already says The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. lower down; and there is similar higher up William M. Connolley 19:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Because the "policy in a nutshell" may convince many people that they know the policy after reading only the summary. It sounds quite unambiguous. --Fasten 07:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, getting back to the original point of this section, we should clarify the technical definitions of the "electric fence", in terms of including reverts of unrelated threads. Any objections to that?--AladdinSE 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the following hypothetical situation a 3rr violation? Users A B C and D each make erroneous but not vandalous unconnected additions to an article. User E comes along and undoes them all either in one revert of the page or manually 4 times. In either case user E has reverted the work of 4 other editors of different threads so from what I have read above they are in 3rr violation - is that correct? Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Sophia, see the section New wording on counting just above this section. See also the history of the 3RR page for edits on 13 April, starting with William M. Connolley (Detail - Counting successive reverts: I believe this reflects practice, and isn't otherwise mentioned) and finishing with Trey Harris (Detail - No, let's take to talk). I think the discussion died down. I got distracted with other things, but I would certainly have liked (and would still like) William's addition to be in the 3RR page. William is, in my view, absolutely correct in saying that it reflects practice, and I think it would be much better for it to be stated explicitly in the 3RR page. So, to answer your question, no I don't think User E would be in 3RR violation in such a case. If you revert back to a version from 2003, it might be a violation of WP:POINT, but it is still only one revert. If you revert four editors by doing it manually four times in a row, and nobody else has edited in between, administrators would count the four as one revert. (Or at least, they should!) I never count consecutive reverts (meaning reverts where nobody else edited in between) as separate reverts. Obviously if users A, B, C, and D all edited one after the other, the easiest thing is to revert once, back to the version before A. But if A, B, C, D, E, and F all edited different sections, and you like the edits from C and F, but want to undo the other four, it might be easier to undo them one after the other, rather than doing a fullpage edit, and getting caught in an edit conflict.
I'd like to see that discussion above reactivated. I thought William's addition to the 3RR page was an excellent one, but then it was moved to talk and just died away. We should try to find a good wording, and then put it back in. There is, of course, the problem that the proposed wording didn't allow for the fact that you could be intending to do four consecutive reverts, and open the "edit this section" box for each one, and another editor could edit a different section in the middle of it, so that your four wouldn't appear as consecutive. (Since you and the other editors would be working on different sections, there wouldn't be an edit conflict either.) I think most administrators would treat that as different from a case where an editor sees edits A, B, C, and D, reverts A, B, and D, goes off and edit a few other articles, has dinner, and comes back and reverts C. (I'd count that as two reverts.) I'd count reverts as one if they could have been done in a whole page edit all in one go, and if they were done in close succession, but someone else happened to edit a different section in the before the person reverting had finished.
Of course, the policy page should be as clear as possible, but in some cases it's left to the administrator's discrection. There are certain guidelines, but also, admins make judgments on a case-by-case basis. They can choose not to block. They can give shorter blocks. They can unblock early if the editor apologizes (or even if s/he doesn't). They can block for longer than 24 hours. They can block a repeat offender who has made just three reverts. The main question they ask when making their decision would be "Is this person edit warring?" AnnH ♫ 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation Ann But I'm still a little unsure as the 3rr policy says :"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part." and "Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." So from those two statements user E would be in violation as he/she would have undone the work of 4 other editors and therefore have done 4 reverts. Williams addition was good as it certainly clarified a point I had not been aware maybe it should be elaborated on to make it even clearer. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 21:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've changed it to "undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part". In my experience, that's what it is always taken to mean. In some edit wars (like a recent one about whether or not abortion should use the word "death", and a current(?) one over whether Christianity is centred on Jesus or on stories about Jesus), it's possible just to revert that paragraph without affecting the other changes that have taken place. In that case, you edit the current version, and just type in the word you want, or delete the word you don't want, or paste an older version of a particular paragraph in place of the current version. That, obviously, counts as one revert. But equally, if you open up the history, and select a version from yesterday, and open and save that, it's still one revert, even if four editors have made changes since then. AnnH ♫ 22:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Does this encourage full article reverts? Sorry to be a pain with these questions but I consider reverting to be the lowest form of editing and am happy to see anything that discourages it! Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 07:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I've just seen a user blocked for doing 4 reverts in 27 hours as he tried to work for a compromise. Another user who just did full page reverts each time saved his "quota" and got away with it. This is discussed with the blocking editor here [12] as it was not logged ay WP:AN/3RR. I am very concerned that the current interpretation of this rule is encouraging full page reverts and an very keen to hear other views. Sophia 12:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Common sense.

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)


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)
However, WP:LAWYER is an Arbitration Committee precedent refering to how Policy should be implimented. --Barberio 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
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)

You wouldn't have any particular examples in mind, would you? It might help to have a concrete example to discuss, to see if everyones "common sense" agreed with yours William M. Connolley 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's quite simple: Revert more than once or twice with no valid reason, and you get reminded about how to be polite. ;-) There's also a tiny number of funny and interesting cases where there *is* in fact a valid reason. Kim Bruning 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Help would be appreciated

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)

Request for feedback.

A section of the parent article (entitled 'Detail') includes the following paragraph:

"Use common sense; don't participate in an edit war. Rather than exceeding the three-revert limit, discuss the matter with other editors. If any of them come close to breaching the policy themselves, this may indicate that the page should be protected until disputes are resolved."

Specifically, I propose the removal of the "Use common sense" phrase from the above remarks, as the crux of the matter is retained, even without the phrase. Although I can only speak for myself, I am concerned about the possible negative interpretation of the term (please see "Other uses" section of the article entitled common sense) which may destructively dilute the point the section is intended to convey.

Constructive feedback on this matter will be greatly appreciated. Folajimi 14:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Am I likely to be the user who will be blocked if the ping-pong which is currently plaguing the Catboy article persists? Although the reverts are happening at irregular intervals — every interval is greater than 24 hours — my reverts are regularly erased by multiple anonymous users. In other words, is this a "strength in numbers" game? Folajimi 14:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Use Common Sense" is a basic principle of how wikis work (see also: Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules). Defining common sense is always harder. But in general, if you are busy improving the encyclopedia, and you can explain to folks how and why that is so if and when you're challenged; then like, go ahead, be our guest, keep up the good work! :-) Kim Bruning 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely response. According to the message timestamps there is a two-hour lag between our posts, which I find rather hard to believe. Nonetheless, your reply is greatly appreciated.
Perhaps hunger pangs have impaired my ability to comprehend simple statements, but I am having trouble interpreting your final sentence :( Is it in reference to the 'Catboy' issue, or is it a continuation of the 'common sense' matter? Either way, I can't make heads or tails of the comment.
Cheers. Folajimi 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (In search of food...)

Harmonious editing club

The summary for harmonious editing club erroneously sang the praises of low-intensity edit-warring instead. Oops. ;-) Fixed. Kim Bruning 15:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

unfixed. 1 revert per idea can still get you above 3RR. Apart from that it is not strongly recommended as long as even admins engage in editwaring. Agathoclea 15:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone reverted your change! Quick, put it back! ;-) FWIW, I like Kim's change. Yes, some admins edit war. That doesn't mean it's a good thing. Friday (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Admins involving in edit wars? Well, they are setting a bad example for other users! --Siva1979Talk to me 16:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfixed? Err, ok. Well, you'll have to explain then... the description given is of a 1 revert per day low intensity edit war, something which I would certainly block for if it's been going on for a week or so. Also (and therefore), it's certainly not the recommendation made by the harmonious editing club.
Are you sure that that was your intent?
Somehow "1 revert ever!" seems like a much stronger criterion, and, in fact has the advantage of being the actual criterion recommended by the harmonious editing club.
As a compromise, if somehow it was your intent to recommend low intensity edit warring over harmonious editing ... that's errr, ok ... but could we then please at least agree for now to leave the harmonious editing club out of it? They obviously don't support it at all. ;-) Kim Bruning 16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes it helps to think of reverting as a "repetition of moves" like you might have in chess or go. If both people make different edits each time (with the intent to converge on some compromise) , then in fact that is more likely to be the actual the wiki principle at work, rather than an edit war. Kim Bruning 16:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Hmm, OH! "Revert once and only once *after* a change." Will that do? Kim Bruning 16:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The club is a good idea - and if everyone would abide by it that would be fine. Sadly wikipedia is full of POV-warriors - starting from denying/higlighting a (alledged) connection of certain ancient people with people of the same designation today to nationalistic or religious zealots.

Obviously a number of admins regularly fall foul of 3RR. The only thing you do is saying "hand over wikipedia to the guys that a bold enaugh to destroy the idea of wikipedia". It is already going that way. Agathoclea 19:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh gosh no. Just that "revert only once per day" is obviously still edit-warring, just more slowly. I prefer "revert once and only once, period!". I added "per change" because - what happens if someone makes a change in an article 3 months later, and you'd like to revert that anyway?
Maybe we can find better wording for that?
Hmm, I have occaisionally blocked people for not abiding by Harmonious editing club rules, with varying success. Some people were not too happy with that. Technically, "no edit warring" has never been repealed, so in some cases it can still be quite valid to do so! <innocent look> Kim Bruning 16:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Wording might be the answer - I will be on a semi-break for the next few days and then totally away for a week - I'll give it some thaught when I am back. Anyway have a look at Jim Nussle and you'll see a case where reverting on a continous level was called for until finally it hit ArbCom. Agathoclea 17:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR rules need to be updated

The exemption for reverting simple vandalism is too constricting and is not intuitive. The 3RR guidelines say that that sort of thing should not be left simply because it has survived three reverts, but I think other sorts of illegitimate edits should warrant exemption as well.

Let's say someone posts a comment that is misspelled, and someone corrects their mistakes, but that person reverts it back, insisting that they spelled correctly. Their original edit was not vandalism, but the person who either knew it was misspelled or went and actually found that it was misspelled should be exempt from 3RR, while the person who both failed to check their spelling and engaged in a revert war should be judged more strictly.
Let's say someone adds an opinion to an article without sources or references, violating npov and making a generally harmful edit, and refuses to allow someone to revert it. While this is not considered vandalism by several users, and isn't simple vandalism, it is not a legitimate edit, and is in fact a harmful edit, and should not be allowed to remain even though it might survive three reverts. There should be an exemption for that too.
I believe the writers of the 3RR rule did not anticipate that 3RR would be used to allow thoughtless mistakes or harmful edits to remain just because reverting them would violate 3RR. I'm pretty sure that they would have considered far more types of edits to be simple vandalism. And even if they would not, I believe that the exemption for reverting simple vandalism should be expanded to all vandalism and/or violations of npov, or any edits that would not and should not be allowed to remain. When I say there should be more exemptions, I mean that people who may have reverted more than three times should be judged on the content and intent of their edits, and talk page warnings and judgements should reflect that. Kamikaze Highlander 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't try and second guess. In any case every exception results in rule laywering. The page includes suggestions about what to do if you are certian you are in the right.Geni 05:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean changes in the rules should be retroactive. I mean that in cases where someone has made an edit that is not allowed under Wiki guidelines, someone reverting that edit should not be treated the same way as the person who continues to revert back to it. Their edit should not be allowed to remain if it doesn't comply with Wiki standards, even if reverting it might violate 3RR. Kamikaze Highlander 05:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Ever read wikipedia's guidelines? In any case if you have a solid case your edit is correct it should be trivial to find someone else to make if for you. Trying to win an edit war by blunt force revission is dumb.Geni 05:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean one should try to "win" through reverting, but in cases where you have to show the person that they need to stop reverting, show their edit doesn't comply with standards and warn them of 3RR, just because someone violates 3RR doesn't mean they should be treated equally.
The 3RR guidelines were written saying that acts of simple vandalism shouldn't remain even though they've survived three reverts. My belief is that those who wrote that meant edits that are obviously in violation of Wiki policies when they wrote it. Kamikaze Highlander 05:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The 3RR must be applied equally or not at all. If you edit is suported by policy and your oponents is not you get someone else to make it for you. This advice was writen into the original rule.Geni 15:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It should only apply when two sides cannot settle their differences and need a time out, and also as a reason to block those who continue to make vandalous or otherwise harmful edits to articles. It should not apply to anyone reverting edits that are clearly in violation of Wiki policies. There should be no reason to have to find someone else to make an edit for you if nobody else has been watching the situation and nobody else knows about the subject.
How is simple vandalism any worse than other obviously harmful edits that both hurt the quality of articles and could possibly be made under the radar and remain in articles unnoticed for a while? It should not be necessary to seek arbitration if one person's edits are clearly harmful, you should be allowed to revert it yourself, and report their violation of 3RR without any risk to yourself. Kamikaze Highlander 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Almost no one breaks the 3RR without thinking they are in the right. This leaves the admin in the difficult position of decideing who is in the right. Instead we keep it simple. If you can't convince someone else of your position before breaking the 3RR then perhaps you are not in the right after all.Geni 21:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The point about simple vandalism is that there is no arguing about it; just about anything else can be quibbled. Let's say someone posts a comment that is misspelled - but a missspelling is must not important enough to revert war over. And as Geni says, If you edit is suported by policy and your oponents is not you get someone else to make it for you William M. Connolley 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've already said most of what I'm trying to say, although I probably need to rephrase some of it. One thing I should say is that if admins do not know whether or not someone was in the right or if both sides were equally wrong, I don't see the need for admins to get involved other than to stop the users if they cannot stop themselves.
I'm not saying people should get into revert wars, but sometimes breaking 3RR can happen accidentally, as several admins and moderators have broken it as well. Now, on almost all cases that are not needless revert wars or arguments between different pov, etc., mostly nobody is ever judged harshly and sometimes not judged at all. My only concern is that treating all users equally is sometimes inherently unfair, and I don't believe it is right for moderators to come to conclusions, sometimes going so far as to say that someone's reverts were not helpful when that user reverted a harmful edit, unless they are certain that they are right. Kamikaze Highlander 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've broken 3RR and repent of my sin! What do I do?

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)

A front for sockpuppeteering vandals

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)

Manitoba (disambiguation)

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