Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Archive
Archives
  1. August 2004 – September 2005
  2. September 2005 – June 2006
  3. June 2006 – August 2006
  4. September 2006 – September 2007

Related talk pages:

Contents



[edit] What does "consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one" mean?

If this is a rule that is going to be enforced on a very frequent basis, as it apparently is, then shouldn't it be as specific as possible to avoid ill-will against the enforcers? This part is abundantly and absurdly vague:

"consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert" [emphasis added]

Exactly how are people supposed to know how many uninterrupted changes they are allowed to make?

I have read that administrators are often accused of unfairness or misconduct, and that this is often upsetting to them. I respectfully submit that for allowing such a ridiculously vague rule to stand, and endorsing it by participating in its enforcement, such accusations and discomfort are not entirely undeserved.

Is there any objection to removing the word "often" from that phrase? Acct4 04:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why, have you seen someone blocked as if multiple consecutive reverts were not treated as one revert? I find it hard to believe that would happen. Mangojuicetalk 05:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I have no idea, but rules that are not unreasonably applied can still be unreasonably vague. If it has never happened then everyone will support removing "often". Acct4 06:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I support it; I just wanted to see if there was some actual example where someone found an exception. The way I figure it, we don't need to hedge that rule because (1) I can't think why we'd need to make an exception to it, and (2) we always have WP:IAR. Mangojuicetalk 15:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been a couple of days, I'm going to boldly delete that "often". 209.77.205.2 04:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I put it back; there are instances where back to back reverts (for instance, to different pieces of content in the same article) clearly do count as separate reverts. --- tqbf 18:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I can not bring myself to believe this. The only way back-to-back reverts are not counted as distinct is if they are to the same passage? Consecutive reverts are almost always to different places. Can you give a specific example where any blocking admin has considered consecutive reverts to count as separate? MB83 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't, but I don't see why this is hard to imagine; all you have to envision is two simultaneous edit wars with a shared participant on one page. Look at the edit history for Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. The word "often" is innocuous and was the status quo; the change may be incorrect, and that's why I reverted. --- tqbf 22:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be in a WP:BRD. I've reverted. I'm happy to help with alternative wording (though I don't feel qualified to). But the wording you have on the page excuses editors who are in simultaneous edit wars on the same page. WP has pages that are both controversial and large enough for that to happen. An editor that reverts two different editor's different content on the same page is making two reverts, not one, and we should not have a policy they can wikilawyer their way around that with. --- tqbf 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It has never been the case that "an editor that reverts two different editor's different content on the same page is making two reverts" -- why do you say that? It doesn't matter how many edits there have been to different places disputed by any number of editors. If it is made in a single edit, it is by definition a single revert. And as far as I know, no blocking admin has ever considered consecutive reverts to count as more than one. If you want to insert the word "often," that makes the rule vague. But you are unable to clarify it because there has never been enforcement that has considered consecutive reverts to be more than one. You are doing readers of this policy a grave disservice. MB83 (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"Grave disservice"? You must be right; I don't feel anywhere near this strongly about it. I'll revert it back in. The policy already says you can be hit with 3RR without making 3 reverts, which covers the edit warrior who is batching multiple different reverts up to slide in through this "loophole". --- tqbf 05:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh., if unsure, just apply the plain vanilla edit warring guidance instead? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a rule for which several people in heated disputes are blocked daily, and it depends on counting. If people don't know how the counting is done, there is no way they can be sure they are in compliance with the rule. If it is going to be enforced literally, then it needs to not be vague. MB83 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are counting, you are not in compliance with the spirit or the letter of the wikipedia rules. You are not supposed to actually game the 3RR. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So in the spirit of Wikipedia rules, surely this should be the NRR, where N is left entirely to the discretion of the blocking administrator, should it not? What could possibly go wrong? MB83 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Mu :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danger Will Robinson

3RR is in fact the 3 rules of robotics. We must therefore have this be speedied since it is a copyvio. Oh no, I'm about to forget my sig! SineBot Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.236.33 (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

<3 --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP discussion regarding conflicting wording

Please note a new discussion on 3RR as it applies to BLP, over at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#3RR exclusion. Depending on the outcome of that discussion we may change the description of the BLP 3RR on this project page. Wikidemo 15:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently, this policy reads, regarding the BLP exception:

Reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (emphasis added)

while the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy reads:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced (or) relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability ... The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. (emphasis added)

So the 3RR policy, as currently written, appears to be in conflict because it covers all unsourced/poorly sourced information (negative or positive), whereas WP:BLP limits the 3RR exception to negative/derogatory information.
Opinions of other editors on how to make the two policies consistent would be appreciated. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition

I wrote a crazy little proposal about a 5 revert rule, see Wikipedia:Don't violate consensus, concerning the case when a single editor is reverted by five different editors. I think it has some chance in reducing WikiStress, but on the other hand it is doubtful that adding more rules will help. I'm not going to defend that proposal, but I would appreciate, if some policy gurus here gave the idea some thought. I just think it might actually help in some extreme cases. --Merzul 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph that makes no sense

Note that in the case of vandalism, blocking editors who have engaged in vandalism or protecting the page in question will often be better than reverting. Similarly, blocking or page protection will often be preferable in the case of repeated addition of copyrighted material.

Huh? If a page has been vandalized, how is blocking a user or protecting the page "better than reverting"? That may stop additional vandalism, but it won't get rid of the vandalism that's already there... you've still got to revert it – Gurch 09:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What it means is that blocking or protecting is a better way to stop the problem than to merely revert. If I insert "merely" will that take care of it? Mangojuicetalk 11:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk pages

User:Taeedxy, The list of exceptions should explicitly list user talk pages in order to clarify that users should, within reason, be able to control what gets displayed on their own page. I see no difference between someone's user page and user talk page in this regard, and it became an issue of contention in a recent case at WP:3RR. Can you discuss why you took this out? Ronnotel 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It should remain out because editors will use it to Wikilawyer their right to control their user and talk page per this policy. On occasion clueful admins or experienced editors will ask an editor to remove edits to their talk and user page for the benefit of the project. If an editor refuses then on occasion it may need to be done despite their objection. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, how about adding a link to Wikipedia:Don't readd removed comments then? I've had WP:3RR cases where one user reported another because they kept removing hostile comments from their own talk page. Ronnotel 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This rule, as currently written, does not apply to "reverts done by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages" per this exception. "User talk page" does not qualify for this exception, or this exception would read "reverts done by a user within his or her own user space". Am I misinterpreting? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That exception was very recently added, and a discussion was started in the section 'user space' below about it. There doesn't seem to be consensus there in favor of it, after plenty of time for people to discuss it, so I removed the exception just now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I was somewhat confused about this. FloNight very recently proposed removing that section [1], and the conversation in the section 'user space' below shows that several others agreed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:71.239.133.107_reported_by_User:Jeff_G._.28Result:No_violation.29, a discussion in which this change is relevant. Thanks again!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mistake"

I'd like a clarification of the following situation. A user violates 3rr, and admits knowing about the policy. But it is claimed that he/she violated 3rr by "mistake". Should the user be blocked?

What if the user goes back to wholescale reverting after the 24-hour period in which he/she made reverts expires?

Such a situation happened here. While I'm not disputing the decision made by the admin (as a non-admin it is not plac to do that) I want further clarification for such a rule. When is it applied, when not? How do we decide if a user has made a mistake?Bless sins 23:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to dispute decisions made by admins; it's more productive to do it politely, like this, than to rant on their talk page. Then you can point the admin to the discussion, and everyone can discuss what's going on.
Here's my general interpretation of how 3RR is implemented. If the reverts were in the past, say a couple days earlier, then we generally let the issue drop, with just a note. If the user doesn't have a history of 3RR, and just got caught up in the moment, some admins are very generous about letting them off with just a note.
If the reverts are very recent, the user realizes they made a mistake, and they revert their own last edit before being blocked, that is usually accepted instead of a block. Some admins will alert users to this option and give them a short period of time to revert themself before being blocked. But this is a courtesy, not a requirement. If a user has already made this "mistake" before and does it again and again, that's a different matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User space

Mardetanha added a section without any conversation that might be worth discussing first because it's a fairly substantial change to a base policy. I encourage some eyes on the proposed change he added (I've linked to the diff above) so any issues have a chance for redress before it turns into an official lightning bolt. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Followup, I guess this has been an ongoing issue, I see a history of adds & deleted, but little recent conversation. Before I revert myself, I'd still love to request some discussion about whatever open issues are causing folks to volley this back and forth. I'm leaving some messages to recent editors of that section to try and wrangle 'em over here for a talk. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I support Mardetanha's edit as I believe a user should be aware that they have some control over their own page, within reason of course. As per my comment above in the section User talk pages, how just providing a link to Wikipedia:Don't readd removed comments? I think that would satisfy FloNight's concerns as well as mine. Ronnotel 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As a general rule, editors can remove comments and warning from their talk page beyond the 3RR limit without being blocked. By removing them we know that they have been read and inquiring minds can look in the history to see them. Someone edit warring with an user to make them stay is often upset with them and might report them for a 3RR violation. The best course of action would be for an experienced user to step in and sort it out by getting every one to calm down. Important to remember that admin are never required to enforce 3RR violations with a block. (Personally, I rarely ever block when users 3rr, instead I remind them of the rule, I ask them to revert, and start a discussion. They usually agree. This is usually much more productive in the long run.)
That said I do not think changing the wording here is best. Usually users have control over their user and talk page. But users need to understand that when asked by a clueful administrator or knowledgeable editor to change their talk or user page to conform to our standards in a particular situation then they need to do so. Telling them that they can not get a block for edit warring over their user page is ripe for wikilawyering and will make them feel that they have rights to their user page that they do not really have. That is why I object to the change in wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
But what about my proposed compromise? Are you opposed to that as well - i.e. adding a link that re-adding comment to a user's page should be avoided. Ronnotel 20:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree with FloNight that it's better not to encourage users to edit war on their user pages by giving an exception to 3RR for that. I'm neutral about a comment regarding not reinserting warnings; I don't see that this is the right place for that - it should go in the guideline about warnings. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
as i see and believe everyone' talk page in his or her own territory and we should respect it .even by violating 3rr .though i prefer by not doing this --mardetanha 22:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It's more than possible to recognise that, generally speaking, users can control what is in their userspace, but we don't need to make an exception to 3RR to do so. Wikipedia:User page covers the ground on this issue adequately already. --bainer (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
but in fawiki we got some probelm one of editor's is going to be blocked by sysop for violating 3rr.so i think it MUST be in 3rr page --mardetanha 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps what is needed is a change from a list of 'exceptions' to a list of possible exceptions. Violating 3RR to keep a 'vandalism' warning over a content dispute off your user talk page shouldn't result in a block... but violating 3RR to keep a nasty personal attack on another user displayed on your user page may. Rather than trying to identify and list every specific instance where 3RR does/does not apply it might be better to provide some examples of the types of things admins may take into account when deciding whether to block or not. Most of the listed exceptions still involve judgment calls... if someone exceeds 3RR removing 'vandalism' and an admin thinks it is a content dispute they may still be blocked, if supposed 'BLP violations' turn out to be non-controversial everyday info supported by the references 3RR may still be blocked, et cetera. As noted above, stating 'this is an absolute exception to 3RR' inevitably invites abuse and wiki-lawyering. --CBD 12:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that there must be a way to express this concern while acknowledging that the right to control one's page is not absolute. Ronnotel 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting to undisputed versions

After reading this article I was under the impression that it was acceptable to revert to keep newly-added text that is being disputed on the talk page from an article, and also to defend the inclusion of tags notifying readers of the dispute. But when I tried to do this, I was criticised for engaging in an edit war.

This really ought to be made clearer on this page, as it's not unreasonable to expect that removal of new and controversial text that is still under discussion would leave you exempt from the 3RR. --Tom Edwards 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting back to an "undisputed version" does not exempt one from running afoul of 3RR unless one is reverting obvious vandalism or a BLP violation. The fact that people are willing to revert between one version and another indicates that neither version is undisputed and as such neither can claim to be the "undisputed version". If the version that you are trying to "enforce" is the version that contains the new and controversial text, just provide a link from the article's edit history of this version on the talk page so that other editors can see it. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine where you would have gotten the idea that "it was acceptable to revert to keep newly-added text that is being dispute on the talk page from an article" from this policy. It's not inherently acceptable or not acceptable - what matters is that you should not be repeatedly reverting. The practice you describe is not exactly the norm, but neither is it a bad idea.. but if you find yourself being the only one reverting out the new changes while others are putting them back in, you should stop. If several people object to the change existing in the article, it can be removed. But flip-flopping back and forth does no one any good. Mangojuicetalk 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably he got the idea from WP:V#Burden_of_evidence or WP:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material. It may be natural for users to assume that it cannot violate policy to remove material that violates policy and that policy says to remove. For anyone interested, I've summarized the proper procedure to win an edit war at User:Jemmy Button/Legal. What the article should be more clear on is what to do instead of reverting. —Jemmytc 23:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I just think that what you're saying there should be made explicit.
What happens if you're reverting purely to defend the addition of dispute tags (when a dispute is ongoing, of course)? Would that be simple vandalism on the other user's part? --Tom Edwards 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring over dispute tags is particularly silly. Everyone should avoid it. The presence or absence of the tag doesn't affect whether there is actually a dispute. If someone removes a dispute tag and you feel there is still a dispute, the right course of action is to find wider attention for the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree... I have seen people both remove the tags because they think the concern is a non-issue when they shouldn't, and I've also seen people place tags over non-issues or resolved issues when they shouldn't. Remove the tag if you think there's no dispute left; add the tag if you think there is, but for crying out loud don't edit war over it. It makes the dispute worse that way. Mangojuicetalk 16:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Could this advice be added to the article, then? --Tom Edwards 10:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a little hyperspecific. Better to avoid WP:CREEP. Mangojuicetalk 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emphasis

The three-revert rule is a good way to measure edit warring. But it alone cannot determine when a user is edit warring. This policy page acknowledges this to an extent when it points our the possibility of gaming the system. Nonetheless, I feel that this page does not adequately emphasize the idea that the the offense is edit warring, not breaking the arbitrary limitation of three reverts per 24 hours. The Arbitration Committee has repeatedly reaffirmed the idea that edit warring is considered harmful and has sanctioned users for this reason: edit warring, not for repeatedly reverting four times in 24 hours.

The emphasis on three reverts in 24 hours results in us missing the point sometimes. For example, a mistake I made often as a newer admin was to block a user who had four reverts in 24 hours, while not blocking his/her opponent who had only three. Both sides were edit warring, yet I blocked only one because she/he had crossed an arbitrary threshold. I don't think I'm the only one to have made this mistake.

Also a problem is that sysops come under attack when they do use their judgment. For example, when I've refused to block an editor who technically violated 3RR whilst other editors were also edit warring without technically violating 3RR, I've been accused of dereliction of my duty. Likewise, sysops who block for edit warring that is not technically a 3RR vio tend to come under attack ("admin abuse!").

Ideally, it would be good for us to abandon 3RR completely in favor of a policy that simply forbids edit warring, without some arbitrary limitation. At this time, though, I think our best move would be to keep this policy, but put greater emphasis on the idea that edit warring is the real prohibited behaviour, and that 3RR is an arbitrary (but often effective) way to keep it in check. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Any specific wording changes you want to bring up? I think this is kinda what this policy is already doing, but maybe it could be doing it better. Mangojuicetalk 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring is already blockable behaviour. The three-revert rule is a subset of the more general prohibition on edit warring; but because edit warring can be hard to clearly define, this was created to be a nice, unambiguous line that noone could dispute they had crossed. That's been undermined a little by the continuous desire to add exceptions to this, but that overall purpose remains. The 3RR is a subset of edit warring. --bainer (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's really the point I'm trying to get across here. That's why I've been working on improving the policy page on edit warring (OK, it was mostly Dmcdevit, not me). Improving that page will do a lot toward helping us move our focus in the right direction.
I recently made one change which was to add a section concerning the sysop's discretion in deciding whether to block for 3RR violations [2]. The idea behind this is to dispel the notion that users are entitled to have their opponent in a content dispute blocked if they report them. Any thoughts on this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on 3RR

FYI, on reading this page on the 3RR section of WP:Revert they seem slightly out of sync. Nothing huge but it makes things confusing.

Also, I am unclear on the exact definition of 3RR. Are the reverts counted strictly on an individual page basis regardless of what is being reverted? In other words, if a given page has 4 independent sections would one revert of content inside of each section be a violation of 3RR? I can understand the point of trying to prevent people from just reverting things endlessly back and forth so it is a good rule, I am just trying to understand where the boundary actually is.

"A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors."

When I read this description it sounds like the intent is to prevent warring over specific content on a given page, not just the page itself. When it talks about "the actions of another editor or of other editors" it sounds like it means specific actions (i.e. edits) with on a specific piece of content. This is why I want clarification.

For example, if I am working on a piece of content (a given section for example) on a page and after 1 round of restoring my work in response to someone else's revert I say OK, lets put our comments on the talk page and then move on to something else can that something else be a different part of the page which is unrelated to the aforementioned dispute? And if for whatever reason some different user decides to start reverting my work in that new section would restoring my work in this case constitute a second revert under the rule?

I ask not because I intend to be a bull in a china shop, but just so that I clearly understand the rules. I understand that we should be discussing these differences on the talk pages but some users are very protective of what they consider to be their turf and refuse to allow any changes, so sometimes reverting is unavoidable.

In reading the comments above I think that my issue, while not exactly the same, is similar in spirit to the proposed addition above.

--GoRight 20:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would count as a second revert. The policy currently states " A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This wording is vague, then, since in my example there were two independent and unrelated editors involved. I was not warring with the same editor each time. "another editor" makes it sound as though you mean the same person to me.
So I take it to mean that any revert on a given page for any portion of that page and regardless of whose changes are being reverted (excepting my own) counts as a revert, with consecutive reverts counting as a single revert. Does that sound correct? --GoRight 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Well vandalism and such don't count as reversions. I wouldn't enforce it unless it's been for reversions of the same edit - as in a revert war. the_undertow talk 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I forgot the vandalism and BLP violation exceptions. Understood. It seems that the safest course of action is to assume the above. As you say, some admins might take the circumstances into account more than others which is fine. Thanks for the response. --GoRight 21:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The more relevant policy as far as editwarring is WP:EW. If folks revert instead of talking, one or both parties are liable to be blocked for disruption. WP:3RR is merely an upper limit on allowable disruption, if parties are editing and reverting sections in good faith with real improvement happening to the article as a result of the reversions, (ie a diff from when the editing started to when the editing ended actually shows some changes..), then it is more likely ok. —— Eagle101Need help? 02:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I suggest we merge the entire policy into Wikipedia:Edit war It would serve to eliminate a whole lot of rules lawyering while keeping or current practice. Mercury 02:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how it would eliminate wikilawyering? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
For example... I only reverted three times, in 23 hours. Regards, Mercury 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep the bright line, the fence, but lets not emphasize it. Mercury 03:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the reason to merge this long-standing policy with another page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about my above reasoning? Mercury 03:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather replace all these guidelines with "act like a jerk and you'll be held accountable," but 3RR has generally been useful to the community. WP:3RR already contains multiple provisos that 3RR isn't a right and so on. Raymond Arritt 03:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This policy was created to address the issue of edit warring, that is right, but I do not see merit in merging a long-standing policy which is referred massively across the namespace as WP:3RR. Also noe that edit warring discusses the subject, while this policy is a remedy designed by the community to address these behaviors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Mercury, revert three times in 23 hours and I will be glad to enforce this policy. Read it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)~~
I know what it says.  :) While I understand that 3RR is not a right, I know... I was using an example. Additionally, both pages address the same subject. While 3RR is a long standing policy, the idea is now forked. A good deal can be gained by merging the two policies into one policy. Mercury 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said, one describes the behaviors related to edit warring, and the other describes a specific remedy designed to address a specific one. You can edit war without breaching 3RR., and you can get dinged for it, regardless if you breach 3RR or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I am in support of de-emphasizing 3RR in favor of the more fundamental issue of edit warring. It is a useful way to identify edit warring, but little more than that. Merging this page into Wikipedia:Edit warring would be one good step in that direction. If the community is not prepared to do this yet, it would be best for us to de-emphaize it in other ways, for example, referring to edit warring rather than 3RR when warning and blocking users. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But there is less ambiguity with 3RR, which is helpful to new users. the_undertow talk 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe the proposal is to eliminate 3RR. The proposal is to merge the policy documents, including the three revert rule, into one document. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Carl has my pulse. This is what I'm suggesting. I don't want to cut anything. I'd like to merge the two documents. Mercury 03:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to the de-emphasis remark by Heimstern. However, I don't see a need to merge them as 3RR seems like a logical offshoot of edit war. the_undertow talk 03:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
By de-emphasis I mean primarily that we leave behind the long-standing notion that it's exceeding three reverts per day that is the problematic behavior, when really it is edit warring itself. The reason 3RR is useful is that it catches a great deal of the most egregious edit warring: If you revert more than three times a day, it shows that the edit war has clearly gotten to the point that admin intervention in needed. But the emphasis should rightly be on the greater problem of edit warring of all types. I'm not suggesting deprecating 3RR, but making it clearer that it is a subset of our edit warring policies. Ideally, we should have one edit warring policy that covers 3RR and other forms of edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, folks I don't think this is a happening thing. WP:3RR was the first policy to be agreed in a large discussion by the community at large. To make that proposed merge you will need more that a discussion in talk.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting another venue? Mercury 03:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a note at the WP:AN/3RR talk page, as this merge proposal would affect that noticeboard. If there is traction for this proposal, a note at the Village pump would be necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How exactly would this merge affect that? The proposal is not to eliminate the three revert rule, just to merge some policy pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It will affect it because 3RR is a specific policy related to a remedy, and WP:EW is another policy with a wider appeal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If the texts of WP:3RR and WP:EW were merged into WP:PQRS, it would still be possible to enforce the three revert rule. The name of the policy document does not determine whether its contents are policy. Nobody is suggesting that the three-revert rule would be eliminated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
(ed conf) ::: What I am saying is that there is a difference between WP:3RR and WP:EW. Merging these two will eliminate these distinctions, and that is why I object to the merge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What is the distinction, exactly? 3RR is an arbitrary measure that allows people to be blocked for edit warring without further discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the above points, but would oppose a merge. 3RR provides clarity, particularly for newcomers -- and the fact that it's a separate policy lends it strength, clarity, and conspicuousness (if that's a word). Obviously it could be merged, but given its usefulness and centrality, I don't think it should be. --TheOtherBob 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

( See dict:conspicuousness) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
3RR is not the central issue, though - edit warring is the central issue. 3RR is an arbitrary measure that is used to simplify blocking people for edit warring, but the reason for the block is because edit warring is bad, not because 3 reverts are worse than 2. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Totally arbitrary, but relatively clear -- that's the point, I think. --TheOtherBob 04:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I think that merging this policy with others would be serious mistake. It is perhaps the clearest behavior policy we have, that has real teeth; let's keep it that way. Crum375 04:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The teeth we have put into this policy have come at the expense of teeth that could be in a policy against edit warring. Our heavy emphasis on "no more than three reverts in 24 hours" has led many admins to mechanically block for 3RR and only for 3RR, ignoring the greater question of who is edit warring and how this issue can be best resolved. A unified edit warring policy with proper teeth, emphasizing 3RR as one (but only one) way to measure edit warring, would be a vast improvement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Example of how emphasizing only 3RR is a problem: the classic situation with two warring factions where one reverts four times, the other three. Two edit warring users, yet only one is blocked. Why is this? Because we emphasize one element of edit warring, the three-revert rule, and leave behind the idea of preventing all edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes -- it's the classic problem of rules versus discretion. Discretion is more accurate, rules are both over- and under-inclusive. But rules are predictable, easier to administer, and easier to explain. --TheOtherBob 04:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Two edit warring users, yet only one is blocked. I think you are mistaken. Check WP:AN/3RR and see how the policy is applied. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, it isn't always applied the way I've suggested (in fact, probably more often than not it isn't). Still, it is the result of the mechanical way of enforcing 3RR that is sometimes taken (especially by newer admins). What I'm most looking for is a way to emphasize that 3RR should be enforced as a subset of a greater policy against edit warring, emphasizing the need for admin discretion. Anyway, I'm getting a bit off the merge topic at this point; this is more a general issue of how we should deal with edit warriors in a more efficient manner than we do now. More thoughts later, possibly elsewhere. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate Crum's concern -- 3RR is a great success, a firm, no-nonsense policy with real teeth that has had some great successes. Merging the text of these two into Wikipedia talk:Edit war/Merged (one draft, feel free to tweak or make another), I definitely noticed that one was much softer than the other. But, as Heimstern says, 3RR's teeth come at the expense of a more comprehensive policy to deal with edit warring in general, especially in cases where users are experienced enough to game the mechanics. I'd like to think that we're keeping the teeth, just angling them in a slightly different direction. By all means, keep the electric fence, it's done a good job. Guess you could say I just want to add some landmines around the fence, so to speak. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My, such violence, Luna! ;-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The 3RR represents a bastardisation of our core tenent that blocks are preventative and not punitive but was created for a very good reason - to provide a tangible line where edit warriors know enough is enough. It has been extremely successful frim this point of view. I would oppose any merge for fear that it would dilute the effect of the 3RR. Perhaps, if there is a problem with EW, we simply rewrite that to have more teeth in it. Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fear is the mind killer.... no. A merge will not dilute 3RR and will not change EW. I'm not sure what you mean here. Mercury 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I don't think there is a lot of overlap (but, unless I've missed something, the merge proposal lacks a draft to show what the merged policy would look like), which is about the only argument that I would find at all persuasive. As it is now, we have a policy (edit war) that makes for an easy wikilink, for discussing the need for compromise, in general, and a specific policy, 3RR, that makes for an easy link to warn an editor. If we combine them, the first link (about not edit warring in general) goes to a very long policy with much about 3RR detail (not helpful) and the second link (3RR warning) goes to a policy that takes about edit warring in general. I think keeping them separate is best. I fail to see how merging two policies is going to change editor behavior in any way (less wikilawyering?!?), and it clearly is going to damage quick references to WP:EW and WP:3RR, even if the latter shortcut drops one into the middle of a combined problem. In short, this seems to be a solution searching for a problem. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I oppose this as well. If the point is not to scrap the 3RR in favor of something else, we will still have the 3RR as a policy, and therefore should have a separate page explaining it. It's not like jamming the two pages together will preserve storage space, and I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia:Edit war isn't accepted as policy (it was first marked policy only a few days ago, and has been de-marked several times since then). Mangojuicetalk 14:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The prohibition on edit warring is a general principle we should all strive for while the 3RR is a hard and fast rule with no shades of gray and exceptions in only the rarest of cases. No need to muddy things by merging the two. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So you would prefer that we confuse newcomers with blatantly redundant policy pages? ;) The proposal isn't that we close up the 3RR shop, only that we admit what is already and long has been the case: 3RR is an electric fence, but not the only path to a block. Edit warring is bad. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer that we not confuse newcomers with overly complicated multi-purpose policy pages. Sometimes an actual screwdriver is preferable to a leatherman. Mangojuicetalk 06:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That assumes that 3RR and EW address distinct issues, when it seems to me they address the same issue. Going with your screwdriver metaphor, you seem to be suggesting we should keep distinct pages to describe slot screwdrivers and also slot screwdrivers which happen to be three inches long, or seperate pages on cleaning up vandalism in general and penis vandalism in particular... they seem like pretty much the same thing, at least to me. Given that the express purpose of 3RR is to prevent edit warring, I don't see the basis for the implied claim that they're not directly related -- not to accuse anybody of bad faith, at all, I just don't see the basis. I don't see anything confusing about saying "edit warring is frowned upon, and can get you blocked; 3RR is one common measure of edit warring... (and so on)." – Luna Santin (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Approve, though this needs a lot of discussion and would take considerable work in implementation. Beyond the question of where the policy cits, we should not confuse newbies, oldsters, and ourselves by inconsistent administrative actions, by which users may sometimes go up to 3RR without blocking, people are blocked for 3RR even when following the listed exceptions, and occasionally people are blocked and pages protected even though they are not up to 3RR. There needs to be a single, consistent rule. If you don't give people a reasonable set of criteria to know whether their behavior falls inside or outside the range of accepted conduct, and a good place where they know to find it, the efforts will be arbitrary and ineffective. Wikidemo 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose for the reasons aready stated. Brimba 16:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support As others have said above, 3RR is a remedy but edit warring is the root illness. In some ways the 3RR system has become something of a crutch and a hindrance towards tackling the truly problematic behaviors on Wikipedia. How many times have we seen someone make Revert #3 at hour #25 and so forth? Worse yet it encourages the use of sock and meat puppets to further help game the system. A stronger policy with teeth would tackle the heart of the issue-edit warring and not just one of the means that folks edit war. WP:EW is a step in the right direction and while 3RR should not be abandoned, I think a collaborative endeavor to merge these two pages would help strengthen the community's overall stance against edit warring. AgneCheese/Wine 18:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Mild Support I've raised a concern on Edit Warring talk about tag teaming which I think should be in there. It is one of the reasons 3RR has fallen into disrepute in my personal view. Having been complaining about edit warring and had the minutia of 3RR thrown in my face by admins, even when I've complained about the spirit, to me this has to be the right direction. I'd like to think that 3RR could wither and die, simply there as a backstop for peculiar situations. Spenny 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too quick??

While I support the idea of merging the two policies into one, I think we may be just a bit premature at this point. The edit warring policy has only fairly recently moved from guideline to policy and seems to still be in just a bit of flux. I would suggest waiting until after the first of the year and then merging the two. I do feel that edit waring is a fundamental concept which will likely be applied more often than 3RR. We ought keep both, in one document, but at the right time. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 13:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How about if someone adds suitable 3RR language into WP:EW, then we can have a discussion (once WP:EW itself is stable as you said) on whether a separate page for WP:3RR is necessary? —Random832 14:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It is moving quickly, yes, but I don't see any reason it would be a bad idea. Edit warring is bad, and can lead to a block -- 3RR is just a particular case where you're very likely to be blocked. It's certainly worth a section or two in any merged policy. Keeping the pages separate seems more likely to cause confusion, in my eyes. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying it's a bad idea. In fact I like the idea - in time. It's just that there needs to be some time for the two stand together before 3RR is depreciated. Edit warring is bad and always will be. 3RR is a little confusing but does contain the tools to deal with the problem. I just think we should give a little more time to allow the community and the administrators to become aware of, and more comfortable with, the new policy. Of course, if the community chooses to move ahead, that's certainly fine. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 12:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Draft?

While I continue to oppose the concept in principal, I think it would move the discussion forward if someone would actually create a draft (on a subpage) of what the combined policy would look like. That way, editors could compare what exists today to what is proposed to replace it, rather than comparing existing policies to some hypothetical page that actually may not be the same in everyone's mind. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I can write a draft later tonight, I'll subpage it here... unless someone beats me to it. :) Mercury 20:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I like the way you blocked it out, and I like the way it doesn't have so much commentary as the new policy page. Just as a caution, proposing a draft at this point is useful to illustrate what it can look like, but it is a content spork. Now we have three pages that say the same thing - 3RR, edit war, and the draft. I just did a heavy copy-edit to the new policy, which I thought was weak in language and organization. Wikidemo 02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different direction

(Sorry for the section-header-cruft.) I'm afraid that merging 3RR into WP:EW will only serve to dilute the recent improvements. The essence of the policy on edit warring is this: edit warring is the specific prohibited behavior; 3RR is one possible metric we use for measuring edit warring, and it is a common one, but violations of 3RR are only blockworthy insofar as they constitute edit warring, while at the same time, behavior need not violate 3RR to be edit warring. As such, I think the direction we need to move is towards making Wikipedia:Edit war the primary policy in this area for which blocks are made and such, and snip this page down to a reasonable guideline on that useful 3RR metric that is commonly used to determine edit warring, with reference to how it fits in to the wider edit warring policy. Dmcdevit·t 03:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose, bad idea. Edit warring isn't allowed, 3RR defines when you are guaranteed to get blocked for it. They are both required. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exception relating to reverts within user space

The exception relating to reverts within user space was added on 14 June 2005 by David Gerard: see here for the edit adding it. The precise wording has been changed since then but the exception is a long-standing one and I have therefore reverted the recent edits removing this exception in its entirety. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was confused and wrong. FloNight proposed removing it [3] and the discussion above in the section 'user space' shows that several others agree. Can you explain what purpose is served by allowing users to edit war in their userspace? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, the point isn't to allow users to edit war in their own space, but to prevent other editors from edit-warring with them. The general theory of WP:OWN doesn't apply in the same way in user space; normally one would leave it to the user whose page it was to decide what went there. Of course there are specific things which users put on their user pages which cause problems, and they normally go to MfD or get speedy deleted. But in general, we should allow users to control their own userspace and it would be wrong to put them in a position of being blocked for defending their way of writing pages in their own back yard. I'm not saying I would never block for edit-warring in user space; it can be disruptive. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I believed this edit. In any case, it is my firm belief that the user page (and any subpages) associated with an account is there for the user to express their opinion (an IP Address does not get a user page because an IP Address is not associated with any one person), and the talk page associated with an account or IP Address (also called a user talk page due to the way MediaWiki works) is there for others to express their opinions about the user or IP Address, and of course for the user to respond in an appropriate manner, and later to pre-respond by adding some content at the top. Legitimate warnings, especially for vandalism, need to be kept on the user talk page, or an easily-visible archive of that page, in order for anti-vandalism efforts to succeed. It is also my belief that the current language for the exception, "reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages" per this exception does not include "User talk page", the third component of "user space" on the linked Wikipedia:User page, or this exception would read "reverts done by a user within his or her own user space". What purpose is served by letting users edit war on the user talk pages allocated to their own accounts and IP Addresses? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended change, new exception

What about reverting bot edits that are clearly disruptive (i.e. the bot is "broken" or malicious), or obviously unneeded (many hyperspecific cases, things that were good at the time but bad now, also good faith edits by users)? Obviously, first you go to WP:ANI about bad bots, but what about cleaning up the mess? I know you should not have to make three reverts, but what if you already made three? --Thinboy00 talk/contribs @166, i.e. 02:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think, if you have already reverted three times and have to undo a bot mistake, you were probably reverting too much previously. But anyway, if you see a bot making a mistake, the first thing to do is to bring it to the attention of admins, because malfunctioning bots should be blocked. (Also, the bot may have a "shutoff button," and the bot operator may be online, so try dropping them a note.) If there's a simple and obvious bot mistake going on, someone will revert the change so you don't have to. Mangojuicetalk 03:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Mango is right, the priority is to stop the bot. Cleaning up after it can wait until it is blocked. --bainer (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact it's definitely better to wait: if the bot's malfunctioning, it could just redo the change it did. Mangojuicetalk 15:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting blatantly inappropriate usernames

I'm of the mind that a statement should be added that reversions of edits by users with blatantly inappropriate usernames are not subject to 3RR. The reasoning? If a user is not allowed to edit with an inappropriate username, it follows his or her edits can be reverted without the need to discuss them, much as is the case with reverting socks. Blueboy96 17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If a user has an inappropriate username, the proper thing to do is to report this at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. There is no need to start reverting their edits as long as they are not vandalism or otherwise inappropriate. Lova Falk (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I do report them ... it just seems to follow that if a user can't edit with a blatantly inappropriate username, any edits made under that username can be reverted without discussion since they have no right to make the edits in the first place. Note that I emphasize blatantly ... like a person whose username contains profanity, is promotional, implies intent to cause trouble here, etc. Blueboy96 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you say, but I still don't agree. The article is much more important than the editor. If the edit is okey I wouldn't revert it. Lova Falk (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
PS The difference between you and me is that I think everybody has the right to make edits, including people with inappropriate usernames - with the exception of people who are blocked. Lova Falk (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Where on Earth did you get the idea that it's policy that the edits of username-blocked accounts can be automatically reverted? --bainer (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that inappropriate usernames are like sockpuppets--they aren't allowed to edit, so they can be reverted without discussion. I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong, though. Blueboy96 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If the edit isn't vandalism, there's no reason to treat the edit differently from any other content-related edit, and an inappropriate username is no reason to edit war. Adding this wouldn't make sense. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with many of the others. If someone has an inappropriate username and they make an edit, it might be a good reason to question it, maybe to revert it. However, edit warring is WAY more harmful, so this should be no reason to violate the 3RR if no other exception applies. Mangojuicetalk 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Agree with Thebainer and Heimstern, but I suspect that Blueboy96 and you all are talking past each other and in practice would likely do the same thing. An highly inappropriate user name suggests that we need to examine the edits closely to look for problems but it does not mean that all edits should be automatically reverted. If the majority of the first few edits examined are blatant vandalism type edits, then quickly reverting all of the edits made in that session of editing would likely not be seen as controversial, even though policy does not directly support it. I think most people would agree that it would be a waste of time for us to closely scrutinize the edits looking for good content. FloNight (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if there's a problem with the edits then there's a problem with the edits. But it should be clear that that's solely to do with the nature of the edits themselves, and nothing to do with the account. --bainer (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but reality on the ground is that classifying repeatedly removing edits of what is a self promoted vandalism only account (because that is what these folks are doing when they so name these account) as edit warring and sanctioning an editor for repeatedly removing a good edit or two (perhaps even planted to increase the drama) is not likely to happen. But I do not agree that the policy needs to state this reality as it is instruction creep. FloNight (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "applies to all editors individually."

Why? All it does is encourage the development of revert-warring "camps" of editors. I think it's obvious and should be part of this guideline that in the case of multiple involved editors, still every revert after the third on each "side" will be treated as a 3RR violation. Otherwise it's madness. Can the parties in one camp really be regarded as independent editors? How sane is that assumption? Even if it may be so every once in a while, exclusion here factually encourages that kind of "camp" (or "side, or "clique", whatever you wanna call it) behaviour. And how exactly can it be justified to exclude the reverters who revert for the fourth time on each side from 3RR? They know all too well what they are doing, worse: they are Wikipedia:Gaming the system in an egregious way. Any responsible editor would never do the same revert for a fourth consecutive time, save for cases of obvious vandalism. Any responsible person would step back instead of continuing, ideally after the very first revert, but no later than three reverts have happened on each side. And why this excplicit exlusion of such multiple-editor-situations in the first place? I dorftrottel I talk I 04:52, December 14, 2007

Well, let's consider this situation: editor arrives and adds a fringe interpretation to an article, clearly giving it undue weight. Another editor reverts. First editor then reverts to his/her version. A third editor reverts. First editor reverts. A fourth editor reverts. And then the first editor reverts. So, do we consider the second, third and fourth editors a group? If so, that means no one can revert to the older version and it's locked with the fringe interpretation until the 24 hours pass.
The essential reason for not including groups in this rule is so that the general community can enforce consensus on the article. Put another way, it stops one editor from being able to foist his or her edits on the article and have just as much say as a group of editors. It is true that this does not stop users from ganging up to force their POV on an article, and the rule has never really handled this satisfactorily. (It's partly for this reason that I encourage admins not to enforce the rule mechanically, but to use careful judgment. Or better, to think of Wikipedia:Edit warring as the real policy and this as a mere yardstick to aid enforcement of that one.) Still, I think applying the rule to groups and individuals equally would cause more problems than it would solve. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Excluding groups from 3RR doesn't enable the community to enforce consensus, but instead to force through a simple brute-force majority rule. Some admins mechanically enforce 3RR, as you put it, precisely to gain the upper hand or assist other, likeminded users. And those on the receiving end or 3RR warnings and blocks are not much less likely to be on the side of actual community consensus: the community isn't a tightly-organised group at all, and this is an unspoken premise in all our rules and closely related to the spirit of Wikipedia as a whole.
Unfortunately, the ideal that "consensus will eventually prevail" (by means of a community made up of fair-playing individuals, which encourages consensus-seeking and discourages gaming and brute-forcing) is no more than this, an ideal, an empty shell buzzword if it isn't enforced through policy. Instead, questioning and criticising this type of gang behaviour is discouraged as assumption of bad faith, calling people on it is near-impossible per NPA.
All in all, it's commendable that you "encourage admins not to enforce the rule mechanically", but in reality, this policy loophole (like other, similar loopholes) can be (and is frequently being) abused. In its current state, the policy actually enforces this type of behaviour.
As far as WP:EW goes: Too weak, not suitable to stop this kind of thing. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:29, December 14, 2007
Do you have a solution that avoids the problems I've suggested? The current system arguably allows groups to game the system. Changing it to include groups would allow individuals to game the system. Is there something you think we could do to avoid either? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Counting the initial edit as the first revert would mean that groups of editors as well as individual editors could be forced to discuss the change and defend it with arguments; the first 3RR would occur when the initial change is re-instated for the second time. Yet even if that happens, the other side should not continue, and instead call for outside opinion/intervention. Let an uninvolved user do the revert to the initial version if necessary, to deny the option of "taunting" the other side. I dorftrottel I talk I 12:22, December 17, 2007
Who are you going to enforce the policy against? This proposal implies that all editors read edit histories before contributing. That's not a requirement, nor should it be. It should be impossible for an editor to accidentally "fall into" a 3RR violation on her first edit. --- tqbf 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope question

Is the "all pages" referred to across the board or just within article space? I'm asking since I'm running into an instance of an non-free image getting constantly reverted to an over-sized version on the image page. - J Greb (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It refers to all namespaces. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to avoid violating 3RR?

I'm having problems trying to figure out what to do to avoid violating 3RR. Say an editor adds a clearly NPOV, unsourced addition to an article (say...oooh, for example, here, I can revert that, they can re-add it, I can revert, they can re-add - if I revert again, I'm hosed. This page doesn't help me with what I should do at that point. Torc2 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You should not be repeatedly reverting to solve problems with pov editing. First attempt to solve the problem through discussion on the talk page. Involve other editors if there is an disagreement. An article RFC or mediation can used if the situation is not resolved. If user conduct is an issue, then an user conduct RFC might be needed if the situation can not be resolved by educating the user about Wikipedia policly. Hope that helps. FloNight (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it does, especially the Article RfC suggestion. I think it would be useful to include this information in the WP:3RR article itself. Torc2 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
We do have a section on alternatives to edit warring at the edit warring policy page. Perhaps that should be included here, too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Even just a pointer there would be sufficient, especially if the information is just going to be duplicated. Thanks for your help. Torc2 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
As FloNight says, the objective of the rule is to stop stale edit wars between small numbers of people by making it an attractive option for them to get more people involved in productive discussion. Wikipedia:Third opinion is another avenue to try, though that is a less trafficked path than Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You could also consider notifying WikiProjects that may have an interest in the area, although take care to express your message neutrally. --bainer (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added a short section on this, mostly pointing to the information in other guidelines and policies. I hope it's OK. Thanks again for all the help on this.Torc2 (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding people that 3RR in just over 24 hours

Is the 24 hours a hard exact limit? If someone reverts three times within 24 hours+5 minutes, then they don't violate the policy? —Zachary talk 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one hasn't technically violated 3RR, but the application is not precise. If someone's edit warring they can get blocked short of 3RR anyway, and that's more likely to happen if there are other signs of trouble like contentiousness or wikigaming. 4 reverts in 24 hours + 5 minutes would appear on the surface to be gaming the system. Wikidemo (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why bright line rules suck. Of course, no one actually ever thought to do away with the forerunner to this rule. <very innocent look> --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor review??? MB83 (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Kim means WP:EW, or Wikipedia:Edit war. To answer Zachary's original question, it's worth considering the history of this page. Back in the days of yore, it was not uncommon to see edit wars filling whole screens worth of page histories. Edit warring was always considered to be a bad thing, but sometimes it was hard to say just whether someone had been edit warring or not. Sometimes even people who were quite obviously edit warring would take advantage of the general nature of the prohibitions on edit warring by wikilawyering. So in 2004 the three-revert rule was invented, to be a bright-line rule that would cover the really obvious cases.
What happened after that unfortunately is that people tended to forget that you could still be edit warring without actually breaching the three-revert rule, for example by making three or fewer reverts a day for several days, or reverting across a number of pages, and so on. Many types of edit warring will not be so immediately obvious as making more than three reverts in 24 hours, but they're still not acceptable. --bainer (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly as Thebainer says. In addition, people are often blocked for near-violations of the 3RR like that. Mangojuicetalk 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reverts of vandalism

What happens if discussion page content is removed by a registered member who is intent on vandalising my comments by interspersing his own into my text? If I revert, do I breach 3RRs? Should I report him to admin? At first I neatly separated his comments from mine and pasted them below, but he was intent on removing my comments entirely, and replaced them with fairly bad sarcasm.--mrg3105mrg3105 11:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone persists in interfering with talk page discussion, WP:ANI is probably the place to go. MB83 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure mrg is referring to talk page comments. It is reasonable to revert someone modifying your comments once, but it's a dumb thing to get into an edit war over. It's usually possible to sidestep the issue: i.e. instead of undoing the changes you can leave a new message saying your previous message was altered over your objections, and link to the diff. Mangojuicetalk 17:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that editing someone else's comments should be subjected to a 1RR rule. Unless it's done in response to a violation of Wiki policy, changing someone else's words is acceptable only when it's done it a good faith belief that the other user would be okay with it; once that other editor reverts you, that GFB is gone.Heqwm (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to specific concerns

Suppose that an edit summary cites a specific concern as justification for a revert. Is addressing that concern a separate edit? For instance, suppose I add a fact, another editor deletes it claiming that the reason for the revert is lack of citation, and I add the fact back in, this time with the requested cite. Does my second edit count as a separate revert? It seems to me that both the letter and the spirit of the rule say "no".Heqwm (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked though the archives a few days ago, and I saw many variations of this question. None of them were answered. Per the letter of the rule, it would seem that replacing a {{fact}} tag with the citation it requests would count as a revert. 3RR Administraors? MB83 (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The question is, is there an edit war? I would count the following as a violation: A adds fact without reference. B reverts. A re-adds fact with reference. B reverts. A reverts. B reverts. A reverts. C reverts. A reverts. Here, A only "reverted" 3 times, not more than 3, but the re-adding of the fact the first time is still the undoing of another user's edit. Note the presence of C here; if B had done it, B would also have broken the 3RR. That kind of situation looks like an edit war. I wouldn't normally hesitate to readd something with a reference if it was removed for not being referenced, but if I was in an edit war I would be cautious; probably better to discuss in that situation. Mangojuicetalk 16:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the question is more along the lines of: A adds fact without reference. B reverts. A reverts. B reverts. A reverts. B reverts. A reverts. C adds a {{fact}} tag. A replaces the tag with a source. A has now undone C's addition of the tag, but it's A's fourth revert, technically. MilesAgain (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Nobody would block A is their last edit was to add a reference. This follows from common sense, which is more important than the letter of the policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Replacing a fact tag with a source isn't a revert so I certainly wouldn't block for that. If C had reverted, saying the item was unsourced (instead of tagging it), and A returned the item with a reference, I would have to look carefully at the situation. If, for instance, C reported A for 3RR, I would probably block, because if C perceives a problem with A's behavior, there's a problem: C may have objected to more than sourcing... or A's source may have been inadequate. In A's place, I would advise against that kind of action; after B's multiple reverts and A's multiple reverts, it's time to go to discussion. Mangojuicetalk 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] template reinsertion

Is the reinsertion of obviously applicable tags like these after they are repeatedly removed without discussion included in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions of "simple and obvious vandalism?"--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No; it's not vandalism you're reverting, it's edit warring. That said, the other editor there needs to explain themselves. I'll leave them a note. Mangojuicetalk 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are correct, then I'm also guilty of a 3rr. Oh well. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If I insert a template disputing the title, and it is removed three times, no title can ever be disputed without breaching the 3RR. Is my only option to initiate a dispute resolution?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it 3RR instead of, say, 4RR?

Let's say an article is in version A (original) and version B (controversial new version). A typical sequence of edits might be:

  • Article changed from version A => B (no reversions)
  • Article reverted from version B => A (revert #1 editor for A)
  • Article reverted from version A => B (revert #1 editor for B)
  • Article reverted from version B => A (revert #2 editor for A)
  • Article reverted from version A => B (revert #2 editor for B)
  • Article reverted from version B => A (revert #3 editor for A)
  • Article reverted from version A => B (revert #3 editor for B)

As we can see from this sequence, the editor supporting the original version is always the one who ends up getting punished by the WP:3RR rule. In fact, for any odd number, the one restoring an article to a balanced and stable version will always end up violating the WP:3RR rule before the editor who pushes a new and highly controversial version; whereas, for any even number, the editor who makes a change will hit the number of reversions before the person who tries to maintain the original version. Why was an odd number chosen for the rule? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm...it'll be the same with an even number. Basically, whoever makes the first revert will hit the number of allowed revisions first.Bless sins (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I am not sure why 3 was the magic number; I am sure it comes from early talks with Jimbo, though. However I remember an attempt to make it 4 instead of 3. We have a WP:1RR, too. In any case, the reason of 3RR is not to use all your reverts, but instead give you time enough to realize you are edit warring. If I edit and someone reverts me, it means someone does not agree with me. If I revert him, I revert knowing that someone is not agreeing with me and yet I want to make my position the definitive regardless of his opinion. The second revert means someone greatly objects my change, or that there are at least two users not agreeing with me. If by that time you haven't yet realized you should stop and discuss, you are not likely to stop. Blocking is not punitive, but preventive, and if you haven't realized you have people who is not agreeing with you, the rule allows admins to block someone since he is not likely to stop after he has done a third revert. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, no matter which page you protect or is reverted at, it is always The Wrong Version. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) This is why I don't believe in mechanical enforcement of the 3RR. In cases like this, where both users are edit warring, I feel admins should block both or neither, regardless of whether one has exceeded the arbitrary limit of three in one day (possible exceptions if other factors are in play, such as if one has a long history of edit warring or is being uncivil). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested exception to 3RR: grammar and spelling

Does it seem reasonable to suggest an exception to the 3RR rule where the edit in question relates solely to the correction of poor grammar or incorrect spelling?

For example, assume that a User had already made his or her three reverts or changes and had been intentionally amending the content of an article (ie. changes which would indeed count towards 3RR). The User then makes a fourth change during the 24 hour period but solely to fix spelling or grammatical errors introduced by other editors and which does not seek to perpetuate the direction of the earlier three edits. Should this fall within an exception?

If this were acceptable, I would not intend it to apply in circumstances where a discussion of grammar or spelling itself was the focus of the article in question, such as in English Grammar or English spelling reform; but rather in all other cases where the correction of the spelling or grammar improves the readability of the article without changing its direction. Kind regards--Calabraxthis (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

But then wouldn't we need to add poor grammar and incorrect spelling as forms of vandalism? If someone comes and adds nonsense, and you revert three times, and then someone comes and adds a new paragraph that is not understandable, really bad written or does not add anything to the article and you revert again, I don't see anything wrong with that. If it is not salvageable, it should not stay in the article. However, sometimes they are useful and should be rewritten instead. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. Obviously vandalism connotes an element of bad faith which is lacking in cases of poor spelling and grammar. But essentially the idea would be if an editor corrected the latter (ie. rewrote the text rather than deleted it), there should be a carve-out from the 3RR rules. Perhaps this would only arise in very unusual circumstances, but it is cases which are at the margin where issues of fairness are felt most keenly. Kind regards--Calabraxthis (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

Does the 3RR apply to the sandbox as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red45aqua (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Do people edit war at the Sandbox? If so, Lord help Wikipedia. Well, I don't know that the Sandbox has any exemptions beyond the usual ones. Is there a specific situation you're wondering about? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No I was just wondering If I could pratice many new things with editing In there as much as I want.Red45aqua (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because practicing editing is not reverting, and therefore not covered by this rule. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And people laughed when I proclaimed my intent to engage in Sandbox Patrol (see #2) at my RfA. They laughed, I tell you. Well who's laughing now? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ronnotel (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting edits by anonymous users applies to this rule?

I was wondering if reverting more than three edits made by the same IP address and it's not a clear vandalism will broke this rule. Tasc0 It's a zero! 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would guess in most cases, yes, unless the material added is unsourced and violates WP:BLP. Both you and the IP are bound by 3RR, so your best bet would probably be to wait a day and revisit it later. Often the anon user won't return, or another editor watching the article will revert the information before that. —Torc. (Talk.) 02:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. But that information it is not specified in the rule page. Or atleast I haven't see it. Tasc0 It's a zero! 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What information is not specified? The exceptions? Or that IPs are not exempted from 3RR? —Torc. (Talk.) 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That reverting more than three times edits by a single IP address will not break the rule. Tasc0 It's a zero! 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it will break the rule. If you revert an anon IP three times, that's a 3RR violation. If an anon IP reverts you three times, that's a 3RR violation on them. Anons and registered users have the same set of rules; it says as much in the very first line of the article. —Torc. (Talk.) 02:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
But it doesn't specify that about IP users. Tasc0 It's a zero! 02:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians." There's no reason to call out IPs more than registered accounts - they're already covered. —Torc. (Talk.) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about what anyone else is doing, worry about what you are doing. More than three reverts in 24 hours is breaking the rule. Maybe someone else broke it too, but that's irrelevant in answering the question of whether you broke it. --bainer (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edits made by anonymous users does not make those reverts an "exception" - IP editors are not second-class citizens. If you find an article under assault of inappropriate changes made by IP editors, request semi-protection at WP:RFP. Mangojuicetalk 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There might be a little confusion about the meaning of "edit". If an IP did eight different edits in a row, reverting to the version before that chain of edits counts as 1 reversion and not 8. You'd have a tally of 1 reversion and the IP 0. If the IP reverts your change then the tally is 1 yours and 1 IP reversion. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 24-hour rule no longer applies?

I recently placed a {{Disputed title|alternate title=Chisinau}} on the Chişinău article. Although "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.", and I did not perform template restores more then 3 times in 24 hours, I was never the less told that I am being disruptive by an administrator in Wikiquette alerts. I thought this was strange, so was wondering if I can have a clarification on this.

PS. Is reverting of the same edit by three different people countering the original editor also a subject of the 3RR?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 09:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Read the policy. The three-revert rule doesn't establish that users have the right to revert up to 3 times in a day: rather, it makes it clear that more than that is unacceptable. That doesn't mean the fewer is acceptable, and in fact it is very often not acceptable, especially if the pattern continues over time. If you are reverting frequently you are nonetheless edit warring, and a block would be appropriate if you seem to have no intention of stopping. And no, 3RR does not at all apply to a group of separate editors. Part of the point of that is so that a lone editor who dissents can't hold the article hostage. Mangojuicetalk 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting pure vandalism

Lets say a user vandalises a page. I revert it and warn them (1). They vandalise it again. I revert it and give them warning level (2). They vandalise it a third time. I revert it a third time and give them a level (3) warning. They vandalise it for a fourth time. What next!? Should i not revert it and still give them a level (4) warning? - Thanks, help on this matter would be appreciated. TheProf07 (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The policy page says that 3RR does not apply to reversions of "simple and obvious" vandalism. However, what is simple and obvious to one person may not be to another. At the minimum I would only do it if it's so obvious that no person could in good faith disagree. Even there, edit warring is a touchy business and you are risking being warned or blocked yourself, rightly or wrongly, if it looks like you're one of the people perpetuating an edit war. I would probably sit back and let another editor jump in, perhaps give the vandal a 3RR warning in addition to the vandalism warning, and report it to an administrative notice board, rather than taking the whole thing on myself even if policy permits it. Wikidemo (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encountering a revert war

A 3RR issue recently came up on AN/I that isn't addressed by this policy, but probably should be. It got heated there, so I won't go over the particulars and just frame it generically.

User A and User B have rung up three reverts each on a page; it's a content disagreement, not an obvious case of vandalism. User C comes along, decides she likes User A's version, and reverts to it. Bad idea, generally. User A has treated three reverts like an entitlement and to revert to him, validates the behaviour. User B is suddenly going to feel that, though both may have sinned, he is now more sinned against and become angry. There would obviously have to be caveats—particularly, if User B was disrupting long-standing wording without discussion it probably is best to revert. But I think it would be useful to address the general problem. Marskell (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In the perfect world User:C would take it too the talk page and use sound reasoning to persuade User:B that User:A's is a preferable version. Certainly appearing and taking sides on the article will just inflame the situation and make the article less stable. David D. (Talk) 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There's another possible scenario - of editors deliberately acting in concert to get their way by combining their reverts to overwhelm a small group of opponents. User A disagrees with users B and C over a content issue. In order to get his own way, user A calls in ideological allies in the shape of users D and E, perhaps coordinating with them off-wiki or on a talk page somewhere. A, D and E have, between them, nine reverts. B and C have six reverts between them. A, D and E can overwhelm B and C simply by reverting more times than their opponents can. This isn't a theoretical possibility; I've seen this sort of thing actually happening on highly contested articles. In at least three cases that I can think of, I've seen hard evidence of ideologically allied groups of editors engaging in prior coordination of contentious editing activities (using e-mail, instant messaging or other web forums to coordinate their tactics). Unfortunately we don't seem to be very effective at dealing with gaming tactics of this nature, particularly if they involve established editors rather than an influx of POV-pushing newbies. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The 3-revert rule can't solve everything by itself. The question is whether the scenario you describe constitutes Wikipedia:Edit warring or not. From the way it sounds, I would say that's edit warring, and I would consider warning all those users that they need to engage more productively, and blocking them if they continue to revert-war, and probably protecting the page. But it could also be that B and C have a minority position that they know is a minority position and are just trying to hold the article hostage against a clear consensus. The 3-revert rule does give an edge to the larger group -- that doesn't mean the larger group is always right, but it does mean that they have an advantage by default. I'm okay with that - more often than not, the larger group has consensus on their side. Mangojuicetalk 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue of course is that everybody knows that editors A/D/E in ChrisO's example (or editors S/C/J if you prefer) are a longstanding editing/adminning tag team. It doesn't violate the letter of any policies, so we all shrug and accept it. I don't see how we could write a policy that would prohibit this since in practice there's no bright line between people who just happen to have similar interests and those who have formed a bloc. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Except you're missing a step: A's second revert in this case was already edit warring, the third was certainly, the other editors aside. Regular editors are blocked for edit warring even if they don't reach three reverts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I was shrugging as well on AN/I, Raymond, because there is no bright line and it's hard to police this behaviour. But that doesn't mean the policy should say nothing—it's not uncommon, after all, to come across other people's edit wars. ChrisO is very right about editors beyond C, but people aren't going to conceptualize that far, so I think any wording would have to stick to two parties + third party. Marskell (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Tandem edit warring is clearly gaming; doing it in a pattern as a reverse form of wikistalking is enabling and manipulative of good faith and etiquette. Raymond's initials of the involved edits are the elephant in the room example. What's going on is cabaling, not collaborating. What we need are admins willing to use judgment to make bold decisions that obviously need to be made and not pussyfoot around about the necessity of "bright lines."
I've been conceptualizing some language in my thoughts as proposed wording. Words in policies will help make this explicitly actionable to reticent admins. I'll write it down later for discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Edit war vs. 3 reverts

I was thinking about posting a suggestion to modify this policy on the village pump and thought I'd see what any regular editors here thought first.

This policy appears to have a few ways for the system to be gamed so that it can actually be used as a tool in an edit war rather than preventing them. If the idea is to limit edit warring wouldn't it be better to address that instead of concentrating on the number of reversions alone? Don't get me wrong, 3RR is a symptom of edit warring, but by no means the only one. For example sock puppets are often used in an edit war just as much as three or more reverts. Gaps are created in enforcement which helps both trolls and good faith editors who refuse to engage in discussion by essentially giving them the ability to continue, without having to discuss their differences. As long as they don't break one rule too much since they know people on the 3RR board aren't interested in sock puppet problems, so long as they aren't egregious.

In short, why not create an enforcement/noticeboard designed to curb edit warring, with behavior like 3RR, sock puppetry, coi, or whatever is discussed with an eye toward how they relate to possible edit wars. An example post would be something like this though not necessarily in table form of course:

Article name Editor(s) involved Evidence Outcome
Widgets Editor 1, Editor 2, and Editor 3 (E1, E2, and E3) 3RR by E1: <diff1> <diff2> etc. presented by E2 and E3
COI by E1: <diff> presented by E2 and E3		 E1 was edit warring and warned

Anynobody 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding a section titled "What the 3-revert rule is not." Specifically, it could include an entry like "The 3-revert rule is not a weapon" that explicitly condemns attempts to get others blocked by continuing to revert. Also, it's not an entitlement, and it's not the only rule against edit warring. What do people think? Mangojuicetalk 06:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think what you are looking for is our policy on Wikipedia:Edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 07:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that your ideas could do something to help Mangojuice :) I was thinking of consolidating enforcement of the 3RR and others related to edit warring into its own noticeboard so that people conducting edit wars can't use the separate nature of the 3RR noticeboard/Suspected sock noticeboard/etc. to game the overall system.

Dmcdevit I'm actually aware of the policy, and my point is that we have so many different areas devoted to addressing specific symptoms of edit warring but nothing (noticeboard wise) for it. (Granted there are routes such as RfCs or 3O but these solutions rarely seem to work or are simply ignored in favor of the incident noticeboard. Anynobody 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Except in special circumstances? What special circumstances? Trying to make the article better? Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally would like this question answered with a simple yes or no. If you have reverted an article three times and it gets vandalised (clear vandalism that is) again, can you reverted it again? Thanks TheProf | 2007 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, simple and obvious vandalism (not subject to 3RR). see exceptions to the three revert rule--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you said that. Because an Article ive reverted 3 times on today has just been vandalised again! TheProf | 2007 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just had a look at the article you mentioned, your last revert is perfectly fine. No worries, thanks for reverting it.--Hu12 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing AFD notices

An editor has twice removed an AFD notice, despite the notice itself stating that "this notice must not be removed". If he continues to remove the notice and I continue to undo his removal of the notice, am I potentially guilty of violating 3RR? I am prepared to report him for a 3RR violation if he continues, but I want to make sure that I myself am not violating 3RR. For now, I am treating his removal as vandalism and my undoing of that vandalism is excepted from the rule. If I am wrong, then I will self-revert my restoring of the notice. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always considered removal of AFD notices to be tantamount to vandalism, assuming the user has been told not to remove them. At any rate, though, I've just checked your contribs and found the article in question and watchlisted it so I can help if the user keeps it up. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replace this rule?

Does this rule have to be so mathematical? There are already so many exceptions and additional stipulations that the numerical criterion of "3 reverts" effectively doesn't (or at least shouldn't) apply anymore. So what if someone's made three reverts to protect the encyclopedia from unreasonable edits? They shouldn't be blocked for that; they shouldn't even have to worry about the possibility of being blocked. The only criterion to be applied should be reasonableness of behaviour. Since the first shot in an edit war isn't a revert, the rule currently implies that in a simple one-on-one edit war, the party defending the status quo is assumed to be in the wrong (and of course the rule can easily be manipulated/evaded anyway by the use of puppets).

I would judge reasonableness in edit warring largely by willingness to engage in dialog. If one side initiates a talk page discussion, and the other side keeps reverting without engaging sensibly in that discussion, then we have a situation where a block could be considered. Let's replace this arbitrary 3RR with an UEWR (Unreasonable Edit Warring Rule) or something along those lines.--Kotniski (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the policy that you are looking for is WP:EW. That policy pretty much covers edit warring regardless of the number of reverts. I've always viewed 3RR as a way to prevent a single user from forcing their opinion on an article. If the status quo truly has consensus, then it shouldn't only be one editor defending it. If it is one editor defending the status quo, then that is probably evidence that the status quo doesn't have consensus and that discussion should be taking place on what is the consensus. It also tends to prevent WP:OWN as a single user can't stop multiple editors from making changes to an article and claim that they are defending the status quo. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense for major articles which are being watched by multiple online editors, but not in cases where only one person happens to be currently online and interested. For example, I don't see why someone can make the same misinformed edit to an article four times (only the last three counting as reverts), declining all offers to discuss on the talk page, and I then have to leave his version in place for 24h because if I revert it again I'll be in danger of being summarily blocked.--Kotniski (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless it is a BLP violation or vandalism(which are exempt from 3rr), then it can stay up on Wikipedia for a few hours until someone else comes along. I know it can be aggravating, but until someone else chimes in then it's just a he said, she said. If it's a protracted content dispute and the person continues to not respond, you can always ask for assistance on AN/I, and/or solicit assistance from one of the wikiprojects on the article. Basically just ask for an extra set of eyes on the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll try that next time it happens.--Kotniski (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed amendment to rule

The 3RR has come up again at the Village Pump - a policy change is being proposed there, whereby a 3RR block would only be possible if preceded by a warning and if the offender persists. This seems only reasonable, since a similar courtesy is extended to vandals under the vandalism policy, and over-zealous edit-warriors can hardly be thought to merit harsher treatment than vandals. (Can they?)

The relevant thread is at WP:VPP#Question about 3RR policy - the proposal in question appears towards the end of that section.--Kotniski (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This part of the blocking policy already covers this, and that should not be duplicated here (or worse, inconsistent material should not be added here). --bainer (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure that the present wording of "here" is consistent with "that". It certainly seems skewed that the wording of the vandalism policy places so much emphasis on the need for a warning first, while this 3RR policy hardly mentions it. --Kotniski (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rewording of the libel exception

"Reverts to remove clear violations of the biographies of living persons policy, including libellious material and unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material."

Verfiability is only one half of the BLP policy - we must also take into account NPOV - given dedication, a user can write a brilliantly sourced but absolutely negative article about a person, and efforts to fix a violation of a foundation issue aren't given the same protection as removing violations of a (non-negotiable all the same) wiki-by-wiki issue. Sceptre (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Not an entitlement" section added

I've very frequently seen this rule used as a defense in unblock requests from people blocked for edit warring: "I didn't make three reverts!" and the like. I've added that section to make it a little more clear that that is, quite frankly, irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Gaming the system to avoid breaking rules is, if anything, more disruptive than simply edit warring, and WP:EW notes that blocks can be made just for edit warring as well. If anyone disagrees with it, I'm open to discussion, but it seems this is more-or-less just a copy of what's posted elsewhere. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there should also be something against another form of system gaming - trying to trap an "opponent" into breaking 3RR in order to get them blocked. In fact, as I've said somewhere above, I think the making of a fourth revert is pretty irrelevant in trying to identify guilty parties in edit wars, and the numerical aspect of this rule should be abandoned or at least toned down.--Kotniski (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that's kinda of covered by the admonition to "follow the spirit of the law, not the letter," and users who do so would likely be blocked for trolling as well as edit warring. You're welcome to add it in if you like, however. I don't see much problem with it, as again, it's basically restating what's already elsewhere. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Fairly" instead of "equally"

In similar situation the Arbitration Committee has started using the word "fairly" rather than "equally" so it is clear that individual circumstances will be taken into consideration for each editor. Both side of a dispute need to be examined and treated fairly based on their individual level of disruptive editing in the current and previous situations. I changed the wording here as well since that is what happens and editors need to understand it. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)