Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/3RR

I believe people should be able to edit the text as SlimVirgin was able to do, but StrangerInParadise is right that such minor changes over time have affected the spirit of the Three revert rule. I have made comment on the 3RR's talk page of how such changes have affected articles over time. In specific to this RfC, wikipedians should be able to put the tag up to advertise discussion. &mdash;  Dz on at as  00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Awhile ago, there were more attempts made to edit the 3RR page, and editors were able to successfully edit and not be immediately reverted. This shows that there was more openness even if we disagreed. Consider that policy changes seem informal, this informalism may need to be questioned. &mdash;  Dz on at as  15:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that 3RR is being used, not as a way to prevent edit wars, but as a tool to supress dissent when a group of 3-4 people 'take over' a page. If there is only dissent by one or two people, then they can revert without comment, and no one can do anything, since asking for explanation yields nothing, and reverting leads to being blocked. It's broken, and is being 'gamed' for POV reasons. For great justice. 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

my comment

 * 1) The change was over half a year ago. I haven't noticed negative effects.
 * 2) I believe you are misunderstanding the nature of policy enforcement at wikipedia. It is not robotic but thoughtful with goals clearly in mind. The goal of 3RR is "to stop edit wars", so if its not an edit war, #RR doesn't apply. If it is an edit war, saying haha i moved rather than revert, #RR doesn't count doesn't cut it so SV just made that point crystal clear. The policy was not in fact chaged at all. Just clarified. In my opinion. WAS 4.250 22:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

our comments

 * Yes, but people lose site of the past. They lose where they once came from, and with all these enlightened ideals and policies, over time such has been forgetten.  Therefore Lost in Paradise being, has provided a good point in discussion. Which is we must be wary of ideals translated into policy, when such translation allows for potential abuse in the future.


 * 1) Also, something everyone needs to concerned about, (about userboxers, changing opinion) is by people being able to proclaim their sides, allows for better understanding of their own positions.