Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule/Archive 1

Controversy section
The following section, entitled "Controversy", was removed:


 * Some believe that the three-revert rule should not be applied per person, but per side in an argument. If the 3-revert rule is taken to-the-letter, it means that two individuals can out-edit one, even if the minority party is actually right.


 * A growing consensus is that, since the mere incidental fact of one side outnumbering the other does not, alone, make the majority right, each side of an argument should be limited to 3 reverts per day.

The fact that it applies to individuals and not sides is usually considered a feature more than a bug. Outnumbering the other side is some indication, although a rough one, of where the consensus is going. There certainly is not a consensus that both sides should be limited to three reverts.

Note that the material was added by User:259, generally considered a sockpuppet of Mike Church. --Michael Snow 16:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not even going to comment on this "sockpuppet of Mike Church" thing, because I think it's so stale and idiotic that I don't need to respond to it. I also can't, as hard as I try, guess how it may pertain to my opinions on this matter.


 * When I last used Wikipedia, the consensus was 3 reverts per side. The specific reason for this was to discourage sock puppetry; if the 3-revert rule were applied per side, the rule could never be evade via sock puppet use.


 * I think it's a good rule. Three reverts per side is quite enough. If it's going to be applied per person now, that just means that Wikipedia will become the democracy of 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on choice of dinner. 259 03:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "Three reverts per side" has never been the rule. It has always applied on a per-person basis.  Isomorphic 22:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where was the vote that was about this? And all the relevant pages where the exact wording of the guideline was ratified? Eric B. and Rakim 06:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * See the links at the top of this page. The main poll was revert wars considered harmful. Angela. 03:30, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

From where does these points come from?


 * In the case of edit wars on important pages, users are sometimes blocked.
 * In extreme cases, investigation by the arbitration committee, which may lead to any number of responses.

Eric B. and Rakim 20:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * They come from precedent. As you can see from the block log and previous arbitration cases, people are blocked or investigated by the Arbitration Committee for violating the 3 revert rule. Angela. 17:25, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * That seem to be against the spirit and wording of the guideline. I.e. "Tannin Note: as a guideline, people seem to be claiming it is a rule. To my astonishment, I find myself agreeing with Anthony DiPierro, who writes: "In theory, though there are exceptions."" Eric B. and Rakim 09:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * But people have been blocked for it. Do you not think this page should warn them of this rather than try to hide the fact? There is every possibility the arbitration committee would ban someone for constantly making more than three reverts. What is your justification for pretending this is not the case? Angela. 02:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Has a sysop ever been blocked for it? -- orthogonal 03:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm aware of, though you could check the block log. Angela. 04:24, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

A new vote is required to get the points that you mention into the policy. Otherwise it is not a policy, it is a behavioural guide line. Anything else would be short-circuiting the democratic process. Eric B. and Rakim 09:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it is policy. I am saying that in the past, people were blocked for it. This is a factual statement, not a policy. Angela. 04:24, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is still irrelevant to the guideline even if it is true. The wording in the passive form makes it sound like users should expect to be banned if they revert a page more than three times, which they shouldn't. Eric B. and Rakim 13:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I continue to believe that per person revert counts are likely to work slightly better than per side - my feeling is that, given that one side or the other has to temporarilly "win", it's not unreasonable to allow the majority side to win. I'd also note that per side revert limits mean that I have to limit my reverts based on the reverting patterns of others - it's much easier to limit my reverts based on my own reverting patterns. Less external factors.

To answer Eric's questions:


 * In extreme cases, investigation by the arbitration committee, which may lead to any number of responses.

This comes from arbitration policy which was ratified in a vote. As excessive reverting is against Wikipedia policy, expectations, and common practice, I believe it's within arbcom jurisdiction. It's also one of the easier breaches of Wikiquette to diagnose and correct. Martin 00:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement
The purpose of this proposal is that the arbitration committee members (as a whole) want to reduce the load of 3RR violation cases we see.


 * If you violate the three revert rule, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours.
 * In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops should treat both sides equally.

This poll will last for 2 weeks, ending at 03:00 on November 28, 2004 (UTC).

You can vote on this proposal at Three revert rule enforcement.

Any one page?
Shouldn't the policy state


 * "Don't revert any one page more than three times within a period of 24 hours."

What if I revert, 4 separate pages? Or one page three times, and another page twice? Etc. ? [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 14:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's understood to mean you can revert as many pages as you like, three times each. I'm a believer that the common practice is so strong here there's no need to worry that anyone's going to start interpretting it differently. Shane King 23:51, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not I. I am a believer in perfectly worded rules, so that some rules lawyer of the future doesn't undo us all. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 00:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's only one extra word - and it might make sense to clarify. Martin 16:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As another data point, I misunderstood this rule in precisely this way (I took it to mean four or more reverts spread over any pages in 24 hours means a ban). An even clearer phrasing could be


 * "Don't revert the same page more than three times within a period of 24 hours."


 * Lupin 21:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Let's try it out. Feel free to revert, but only thrice per 24 hours! Jon.baldwin 00:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the rule generally considered to apply to talk pages?
I am not sure this is the right place to ask. If not, please bear with me and move my question to a better place.

Is the Three revert rule generally considered to apply also to talk pages? That is, discussing/argueing about the issue without actually editing the article in question back and forth. Habj 23:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't apply to talk pages. Just arguing about an issue isn't reversion though. It would only be reversion if you repeatedly removed, added, or changed something in the talk page. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 02:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * deleting other people's comments is vandalism; isn't it?? Mozzerati 21:07, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)


 * No, not simple vandalism, if you give some sort of reason. I've seen a number of times when admins have removed other people's comments.  I've even done it myself.  It depends on what the comment is, but deleting other people's comments is not vandalism per se. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

re vandalism
I'm happy to accept the emerging consensus that 3RR (or the enforcement of 3RR) should not apply to reverts that are dealing with vandalism, although I do still feel it is a mistake. However, I crave indulgence from the community for keeping the initial statement of the 3RR on this page clear and simple. The exemption for reverting pure vandalism is a minor addendum, in my mind, rather than a fundamental part of the guideline. Martin 17:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Is there really consensus for this change? It seems rather dangerous, considering how much leeway there is in defining vandalism. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 03:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I personally agree about the potential for danger. Hopefully if it does cause problems it can be changed back. Martin 01:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * this comes directly from Jimbo (says Neutrality in an edit comment)

I still feel that the statement of the 3RR at the top of the page should be short, simple, and to the point. The vandalism exception is a minor one, in my opinion. Martin 01:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have a big problem w the exception for vandalism, due to how broad many peoples definition of vandalism is. It ought to be 3 reverts of any one page in 24 hrs, period. If there is a vandalism problem, list if of ViP, go on IRC, do something other than revert 4 times. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 01:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

article or edit?
The example given on the page about repeating chess moves seems to suggest no more than 3-reverts of an edit. However, the rule refers to an article. For example, a user might go through the article on say Rodney King and put it several distinct edits which are either factually wrong or clearly POV, but with a few goods ones mixed in the middle. Because of the few good ones interspersed, I cannot hit the revert button just once. Instead, I would need to go through and remove each of the incorrect edits one at a time. This might well end up being more than 3 reverts, though at different points in the same article. Does that violate the rule? If not, could we get a clarification in the rule. I would be willing to change my vote on enforcement to yes if such an amendment was made.

The reason this occurs to me is that I have seen this tactic used quite intentionally &mdash; mixing a few reasonable edits in with a bunch of objectionable ones to make it much more burdensome to revert. Wolfman 03:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the page clearly talks about articles pages, not edits. However, I see this as one of the many fundamental flaws in this policy. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To people who have never dealt with an edit warrior, this policy may seem very cut and dry. But, it is quite poorly defined. And next time a Rex comes along, there is going to be hell to pay because of it. Good intentions do not make good policy. And while this policy is well-intentioned, I expect there will be major problems with enforcement. Assuming good faith is well and good when editing. It is not well and good when writing the rules; they should be written assuming someone will try to find the loopholes. Wolfman 14:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

get the wording right, please
Should be "This doesn't apply to self-reverts or reverting of simple vandalism."  Currently it says that vandals can revert as often as they like. --Zero 07:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Fixed "This doesn't apply to self-reverts or correcting  simple vandalism." -- Netoholic @ 22:05, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Page, not article
This rule has always applied to all pages, regardless of whether they are in the article namespace or not. The poll at Three revert rule enforcement was based on this interpretation. In light of the confusion over some of the Arbitration Committee's rulings that said "any article" and the existence of the page What is an article, it is important that the text of this rule continue to read this way. --Michael Snow 23:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clarification needed, apparently
Although it seems clear enough to me, confusion still arises regularly over a couple of points: I suggest that a sentence is added to bold text at the beginning of the article to clarify these points. - Jakew 23:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Whether the 24-hour period refers to 24 hours from the first revert, or a calendar day in some unspecified timezone ("Wikiday?")
 * Whether three reverts are acceptable (maybe it would be better to use a sentence structure like "do not revert four or more times...")


 * (a) It refers to any 24 hour period. (b) Three reverts are acceptable. Very Verily  00:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Cheers. That's what I thought. Have added a sentence to the bold text - let me know if you think it helps clarify. - Jakew 00:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edits and reversions
There has been some discussion (e.g. at WP:AN) about whether a revert+edits counts as a revert or not. It's crystal clear to me that if we don't consider a reversion+edits as a reversion, to count toward the 3RR, we might as well ditch the 3RR rule - because otherwise everyone will make an edit as well, every time they do a revert, and will thereby avoid ever triggering the 3RR. However, this page needs to say this explicitly, otherwise admins attempting to enforce 3RR will get grief because they are counting things that are actually "edits", not plain old "reverts". Noel (talk) 05:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So who is it who sits in judgement on such matters? Are we to have 300 odd sysops slapping 24-hour bans on people on people who "they" interpret as having intended to revert rather than edit an article? Dangerous. Of course that this (as you suggest) has not yet been passed into law (so to speak) has not stopped certain of the over zealous sysops from interpreting a combination of reverts and edits to be breaches of the 3RR. What does one do when these clearly out of control sysops apply or threaten to apply their own interpretation of the 3RR? - Robert the Bruce 20:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, do you all want the 3RR rule enforced, or not? I'd much rather be working on articles than doing the janitor work of investigating reports of 3RR violations and making sure they are correct before taking action. It's hard enough even without 17 layers of bureacratic nonsense. I am really tired of the constant moaning about "out of control sysops". If you think someone's displaying poor judgment, we have a mechanism to deal with that - and at least one sysop has already been removed through it. If you think you ought to be in charge of deciding who's violating 3RR, be my guest. You can have the job. I sure don't want it. Noel (talk) 21:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"I'd much rather be working on articles than doing the janitor work of investigating reports of 3RR violations and making sure they are correct before taking action." Then you should resign from being an admin. Dan100 09:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

PS: You never answered my question: should a revert+edits not count as a revert? If so, I'll be happy to edit this article page to say "If you want to avoid the 3RR, just make sure to include an edit in every revert. Happy edit wars!" Noel (talk) 22:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this not a case in point, though? I mean no disrespect, Noel, but Robert the Bruce asked a legitimate question, and I feel you shouldn't respond as though he's asking in bad faith. I also feel that admins are displaying a wild inconsistency is the approaches they take to 3RR. There was a recent case of a bunch of racist sockpuppets, spreading racial abuse (some of it really quite vicious) around on articles' Talk pages, users' Talk pages, violating 3RR, deleting properly referenced material, vandalizing user pages. Yet nothing was done about this person for weeks. On the other hand, a number of editors have been blocked for 24 hours, because of highly ambiguous 3RR violations (violations that some might regard as genuine edits), and blocked with no warning, even though no editor complained, and even though it was their "first offense." With admins differing so widely in their interpretation of the rules &mdash; and even worse, refusing to explain their actions &mdash; some ordinary editors can't help but feel there's something badly wrong in the state of Denmark. I would hope that admins themselves would want to help to identify those among them who are behaving inconsistently, because that very small number of people is giving the others a bad name, most unfairly. Slim 05:13, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sure are some problems. (Although the case you mention of the racist sockpuppets, is mostly not germane - except in the ironic sense that probably nothing could be done about much of what they were doing precisely because the discretion that admins have to block people is so limited.)
 * There definitely is some un-desirable variation in the way 3RR blocks are imposed. To some extent this is inevitable when you have a group of people doing enforcement - different people will see the same circumstances differently.
 * If you try and fix this, some cures may be worse than the disease - we'll have rules that are Procrustean (I already had a case of this, with the rules we have already), and if they get really complex, admins will just refuse to get involved in 3RR enforcement - because who needs the grief you're sure to get if you make some mistake imposing a complex set of rules?
 * I wish I had a good answer for you, but I (obviously) don't. All I can say is that if you think you see the 3RR being unevenly enforced, drop a note at WP:AN so the admins can see if there's some lesson to be drawn. Noel (talk) 20:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * To me it's obvious that and edit plus a revert is still a revert, for the reason that without it the rule would be meaningless. I agree it should be made explicit though. --fvw *  23:26, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)


 * To you maybe, but the policy does not state that. So we see the spectre of power crazed sysops (in Doctor Strangelove mode) suspending and banning people on whim of personal "interpretation" ... "hmm, I think that was a cleverly disguised attempt at a revert, pity I can only ban him for 24 hours", they will say. Someone needs to explain to these overzealous sysops that the policy is clear and simple because it is not open to a wide range of interpretations and inconsistent applications. Again sadly the main cause of edit wars gets lost in the ensuing edit wars and the shoot out with gunslinger sysops with ichy trigger fingers desperately keen to ban someone, anyone. As irritating as reference to "out of control sysops" may be to some it is clear that this is the single most serious problem facing Wikipedia. Simple vandals come and go and their damage is generally quickly repaired but the damage from the stifling effect of the bureaucratic hand squeezing the throat of free exchange as they "interpret" the inner most motivations and intentions of contributors and ban, RfC and arbcon people left right and centre. It has been seen that sysops/administrators are not able to reform themselves so there remains no other alternative but to create a mechanism to control those drunk on their new found bureaucratic power. - Robert the Bruce 07:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The best evidence that the place is not over-run with "power crazed sysops" who do what the want, "drunk on their new found bureaucratic power", regardless of the rules, is the fact that you're still editing. (In fact, sometimes I wonder if you're just a very subtle troll, but I digress.) Trust me, if we were as out-of-control as you seem to think we are, your ass would have been banned for life a long time ago.
 * The vast majority of sysops are hard-working people who take their responsibilities quite seriously. The persistent insinuations to the contrary from you and those like you do nothing more than weary them, to the point where sysop burnout is a real problem (one that's a hell of a lot more real, and serious, than your imaginary problem - and both are far from "the single most serious problem facing Wikipedia") - there are long list of (hardworking and diligent) sysops who left because of this kind of abuse (an early example being User:Zoe). (And if you think they aren't overworked, why don't you go lend a hand doing most of the lifting on WP:CfD for a few weeks, and then come back and complain.)
 * To repeat what I said about, which you seem determined to ignore, if you see syspos abusing their power, I urge you to use the process that Wikipedia provides (and, which, moreover, has been demonstrated to work) to do something about it.
 * Failure to do the latter two will, in my eyes at least, label you a trouble-making troll whose complaining deserves to be utterly and completely ignored. Noel (talk) 20:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should require a change to be "substantially more revert than edit" in order to count as a revert. I admit that I'm not 100% sure how this might be measured, unfortunately, but I thought it worth discussing. If you imagine a case in which an editor introduced a couple of new paragraphs and altered a section heading such that it just happened to be the same as that in a previous version, it wouldn't be considered a revert. On the other hand, if an editor performed a revert and then corrected a single typo, it should be considered a revert. Thoughts? - Jakew 11:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The charm of it would be that it would force edit warriors to work on the non-disputed bits of the article as well. These wouldn't be good edits however, and the result would just be that not only does the revert-warring continue but the rest of the article gets butchered to make the reverts legal. I don't think this is a good idea. --fvw *  16:52, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)


 * Should we start out by assuming bad faith? Seems to me that's unwise. Ok, how about this suggestion then: in cases where there is ambiguity, why not get the agreement of two admins? - Jakew 19:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea to me, but I worry about the extra bureacratic overhead. (This last is not illusory - I often pass on doing 3RR violations because I can't deal with doing all the necessary diffs, created the documentation to leave on the offendor's talk page, etc - and then often you have to do two sets of all that, because there's often another single person on the other side.) There's no problem with an informal guideline to do this, though - an admin who's wondering if they are seeing it right can always ask for a second opinion. Probably not a bad suggestion to add to the appropriate page. Noel (talk) 20:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rejoicing
May I just say how wonderfully I think the new enforced 3RR is working? I've seen several instances of revert warriors being warned of their violation of the 3RR who've then taken it to talk and discussed (well, bickered about, but it's a start) it there. --fvw *  19:37, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Defining what a revert is
A few recent editors have tried to insert what I would call a definition of a revert. My feeling is that this page should reflect only the rule itself, but that discussion about what a revert is or what constitutes one should happen in Revert, since that is the page referenced by the rule. -- Netoholic @ 18:20, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that Revert should contain discussion of what a revert is, and should refer to (rather than redirect to) How to revert a page to an earlier version for information on how to perform one type of revert. Three-revert rule should in turn refer to Revert for the definition.  &mdash;AlanBarrett 11:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have placed a definition at Revert. &mdash;AlanBarrett 13:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Different reverts

 * I think this is an unwarranted expansion of the 3RR ; find support on the talk page before changing policy (edit summary by Maveric149)

This isn't a change of policy, this is a reiteration of what it says in the preceding text:
 * After making a reversion, do not do so again more than two times within 24 hours of the initial one.

This says that after you've reverted, you're not allowed to revert again more than twice. --fvw *  01:39, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)


 * Well I've done my bit. I leave it up to anybody who wants to, to give it a go.  I do think the clarification is needed but my wording may not be the best. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think the issue is with the wording but with the idea behind it. I've always read it to mean what I said above, but if anyone reads it differently let's hear it. --fvw *  01:48, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

See Administrators'_noticeboard and User talk:Maveric149. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to make sure there is community support behind such a clarification. I know my intent when I voted for the 3RR is that the reverts needed to be part of the same dispute. --mav 01:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * How did you conclude that, if I may ask? At the top of |the 3RR page at the time of your 3RR vote, there was a large text reading
 * Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.
 * That seems pretty clear to me they don't need to be the same or related. --fvw *  01:58, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)


 * A revert is the swapping of one version for another. So for me 3RR is when the same version is swapped more than 3 times on the same page in 24 hours. But as I noted on Wiki-EN-l in response to Jimbo (who agrees with me, btw), my take on the 3RR seems to be a minority interpretation. --mav 15:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, but do you agree that that is not what it says (or said) on WP:3RR? --fvw *  15:57, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)


 * As things stand currently I think this defenition of revert is a bit too broad. I think we need to establish what a revert is through some pedia-wide discussion, can we have this issue promoted somewhere, maybe the signpost? Mgm|(talk) 10:14, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you want to discuss it again, by all means draw attention to it. Signpost is more for reporting on things that have happened and such, but RfC or the village pump are appropriate. As it stands though, any three reverts is three reverts is what we voted on and what is very clearly policy. --fvw *  14:48, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

The idea that the revert need not be the same revert came after User:Cantus, when placed under revert parole, thought reverting to one of two different previous versions wouldn't be a violation. Admins quickly decided this wasn't in fact the case. I would strongly suggest that deciding it wouldn't be a violation would be opening the floodgates to determined idiots - David Gerard 23:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like there really are significant differences on this. Although to me After making a reversion, do not do so again more than two times within 24 hours of the initial one appeared unambiguous to me, it seems that a number of people have said they feel it should mean do not do the same revert again more than two times within 24 hours. I suppose we can either leave the wording as-is or call a poll on the policy.  In my opinion a decision either way would be best.  An admin can still use his discretion to block an editor who is being disruptive.  If some editors became creative then in time the bar for this kind of block would adjust to meet the needs of the circumstances. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to add some text to this page almost a month ago which attempted to clarify this issue, by explictly stating that the revent applied to any specific piece of text in an article.  However, Netoholic and Tony Sidaway opposed this. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  17:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, I'd almost forgotten that. That time, I thought *you* were the one making policy on the hoof.  Looks like I got caught the same way.  No consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * When I first encountered the 3RR, I assumed it meant what it said: "Do not perform more than three reverts per 24-hour period" (not even if they are in different articles). Later, I learned that it means "do not perform more than three reverts in the same article per 24-hour period".  The idea that some people think it means "do not revert the same change more than three times per 24-hour period" is quite novel to me; could people who think it has this meaning point to supporting words in the policy?  &mdash;AlanBarrett 19:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where to Report
I took a very big gamble and opened up a new section on this pag eon my own initative. I did this since I could not help noticing there is no link to a "violator" or "alert" section. This page would be a good enough place it seems! Other people have wondered about this too, i.e. where to report violators of teh 3 revert rule. Lets keep it here! Thanks -Husnock 2Feb05


 * I see that idea was reverted in under 2 minutes. Would it be so wrong to have it here?  The Admin discussion page is packed full of things not having anything to do with this rule.  Since vandalism has its own report page, why not the 3 Revert Rule? -Husnock


 * Have you had trouble getting someone blocked? Gazpacho 06:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We now have WP:AN/3RR specifically for reporting 3RR violations. Noel (talk) 22:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sick
This rule is a sick way of silencing people acting in good faith. It allows lawyer-minded borderline vandals to threaten others with punishment, with impunity. Chamaeleon 21:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Very few people love it, we just can't come up with anything better that everyone likes, and can live with in practise. Please suggest something better! Noel (talk) 03:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed rewording
Sometimes the Arbitration Committee bans particular users from editing certain pages. I propose that the sentence "(This doesn't apply to self-reverts or correcting simple vandalism.)" be changed to "(This doesn't apply to self-reverts, enforcement of Arbitration Committee rulings, or correction of simple vandalism.)", which is also better English. --Zero 09:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Enforcement of Arbitration rulings has nothing to do with reverting. In my opinion adding this text would only confuse the reader.  If you're suggesting the users should be allowed to get into revert wars with users who are already under an editing ban, I don't think there is policy on this.  The editing ban should be enforced by an admin blocking the user for up to 24 hours; then the other editors could clean up the mess without resorting to edit warring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zero; ArbCom rulings often include statements to the effect that edits by certain editors on various articles can be immediately reverted. These edits in themselves should be counted as simple vandalism, so reverting them should be count towards a 3 revert total.  Zero's wording clarifies. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  15:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Add a mention of it in the text of the page, but not in the "boxed" rule itself. This doesn't come up that often. -- Netoholic @ 16:33, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)


 * I agree. Keep the basic rule clear, simple and well-written for those of good will; add the subclauses and riders for the creatively antisocial later - David Gerard 11:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia proposed changes
Jim Cecropia recently made an edit (which I am about to revert but will not revert again) adding the following:


 * Admin responsibility
 * Admins applying the policy should be mindful of the origin of the three-revert rule. It was created not to punish editors or choose sides in an article dispute, but to discourage edit warring where a handful of editors reverted continuously until an outside admin stopped them.
 * Since the use of a block in the 3RR is at admin's discretion, before an admin blocks a user, always consider:
 * Did you make any attempt to engage the edit warriors?
 * If the revert war is moving too quickly to engage the editors, did you protect the article long enough to attempt to engage the warriors?
 * If one side in the edit war is defiant or nonresponsive, have you placed an appropriate warning on his/her talk page against resuming the edit war and then left sufficient time (say 15-30 minutes) for him/her to read your warning before unprotecting the article?
 * Before considering a block, did you look at the content of the disputed edits to try to determine whether this is potential vandalism or simply a content dispute?
 * If it is a content dispute, ask each side to justify its position to help determine lack of good faith, which is otherwise assumed.
 * Do you stand ready to mediate the dispute if asked to do so by any of the parties?
 * Remember: it takes at least two editors to edit war. Make certain you understand the consequences to Wikipedia and community cohesion and Wikilove before blocking one side in an ungoing dispute.'
 * Remember: it takes at least two editors to edit war. Make certain you understand the consequences to Wikipedia and community cohesion and Wikilove before blocking one side in an ungoing dispute.'

Jim also appended to the advice to micreants to apologise the following phrase: " and/or succinctly explain the circumstances" which to me seem to be saying "don't apologise for going against Wikipedia policy."

He also removed the following sentence: "Some admins look at the quality of the edits in question, but most admins do not as the 3RR is not about edit quality."

Jim, the additions seem to be mostly reasonable advice, but not what I'd want to put in policy because really the admin is supposed to be just there to decide whether someone is in breach of policy. It probably is a bad idea if he gets involved as a mediator, because we're not qualified to do that and we're not chosen for that purpose. This sounds like instruction creep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, I believe you are well-intentioned, but I have some awareness of both the abilities and the responsibilities of an admin. As a newly-minted admin, I am troubled by several of your comments: you criticize my adding: "and/or succinctly explain the circumstances" which you interpret as saying "don't apologise for going against Wikipedia policy."


 * Understand this: An admin is not judge and jury. The fact that an admin has chosen to step into a dispute and use his discretion to block a user is not necessarily justified by the mere act of his doing it. You are very mistaken that an admin is not supposed to mediate. Administrators serve the community, they are not superusers and they only become police when lesser measures fail. I'm sorry if this sounds hard but it is because I feel you need to brush up on the nature of adminship here. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Jim, that's all well and good, but there's one problem: what you put on the page is thoroughly different from the rule that was acclaimed by consensus and hence made official policy. If you want to change it, it should at least go through the same process - David Gerard 13:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're dead right that an admin is not judge and jury. We're accountable for our actions just as any editor is. But your list of neat things for an admin to do doesn't really belong on 3RR, or indeed in policy at all. Remember, it's the chap who is blocked who was engaging in an edit war, not the admin. The admin is just the guy who is supposed to enforce policy--which is that edit warriors who engage in a particularly extreme for of edit warring can be blocked for up to 24 hours. There is nothing in there about the admin having to introduce himself, pour a cup of coffee, whatever. Once it gets to 3RR, things are a little beyond that kind of nicety. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep. Hence the bit about how admins are supposed to treat all sides (edit warriors) equally. - David Gerard 13:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Multiple reverts on this page
I am one of several editors who have changed some of the punctuation on this page to follow the Manual of Style, which calls for the "logical" quoting style. Neutrality has reverted these changes several times. He has called these edits arbitrary. My response: in following the history of this page, as far as I can tell, the logical style was used in the first instance a quote was used on this page. (See this diff). So changing the style back to the original hardly seems arbitrary, but reverting (multiple times) away from the original, and away from the house style, does seem arbitrary. Jonathunder 04:52, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)


 * Inconsistency happens, I guess - David Gerard 13:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, David, this is deliberate on Ben's part. Ben (Neutrality) has a writing style that uses lots of quotation marks, and is also particular about always adopting the style favoured by American publishing houses of placing stops, question marks, exclamation marks and commas within quotation marks. He is well aware that it is not what the Manual of Style says - but prefers to copy-edit in his own way. There are other points where he also deliberately copy-edits against what he knows to be MoS style because he prefers other styles. It is annoying, but if you keep reverting him (not just on this page, but on every page he alters to a style inconsistent with the MoS) he'll go away for a while and find something more useful to do, jguk 13:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"...if you keep reverting him..." The reason I opened this discussion was to try to end these repeated reverts. On this page, of all places--too ironic. Let's discuss, not revert. Is an edit to follow the MoS "arbitrary"? Jonathunder 17:10, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)


 * I know. Only reason doesn't work on this one! Unfortunate though that is, jguk 19:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of Netoholic's revert of David Gerard et al, 23 Mar
I do think that a fourth revert just over the far side of the clock tends to be treated with suspicion, and I'm pretty sure such behavior has tended to influence arbcom's judgement (for instance in the first Everyking case). So I think the explanation of the rule should definitely say something about that.

The template seems okay for now, although it seems a little odd to have a page on the 3RR without the definition of the rule on it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The rule is exactly how it was voted, and was set to a specific maximum. If someone "games the system" by reverting again at 24hr +1 minute, congratulations to them.  Before we voted on enforcement of this rule, there was nothing to enforce.  I see anyone that wants to block a user for a "just over 24 hours" revert as themselves "gaming the system" from the opposite view.  We voted to set a maximum acceptable behavior - if the user is persistent and keeps reverting just outside 24 hours, file an RFC and take it to higher levels.  -- Netoholic @ 16:38, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should "congratulate" people who game the system, but rather discourage them. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should allow aggressive admins to "game the system" by flagrantly not following the rule. -- Netoholic @ 17:47, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)


 * can you show where this has happened an another admin has not pulled the blocked?Geni 18:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what kind of examples you're looking for, but admins have blocked "24 hours and a bit" 3RR violators and not been undone, but rather supported. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think we should come down on them like a tonne of bricks. The rule is to be followed in spirit rather than letter, which is why we have human administrators doing the 3RR blocking and not four or five lines of PHP. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The "spirit" of the rule is that revert wars are bad. The letter gives a specific limit to acceptable behavior. -- Netoholic @ 17:47, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)


 * The point of my edit was to simply describe what has happened, so we can avoid getting into a pro and con edit war about it. Your insertion of unilateral "con" advice, and re-wording the item itself to support that, was a deliberate attempt to undermine the neutral "spirit" of that edit. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  18:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Great, so let's remove it altogether. The rule is the rule is the rule.  Implying that admins have rightly broken the rule is the wrong thing to say on the policy page itself.  Talk about a mixed message.  -- Netoholic @ 18:29, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)


 * It is your POV that by doing this the admins have broken the rule; others feel they have enforced it. Whether or not this is encouraged/permitted/discouraged is unclear; most admins support it, while an extremely small number of non-admins, (who coincidentally regularly complain about "admin abuse" and "rogue admins"), as well as those blocked by it, do not support it. Leaving it as written is entirely factual, and maintains the (extremely minor) ambiguity about the practice that reflects real life. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  18:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As to wording, Jayjg's is acceptable to me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Me too. Net, the current wording appears to describe reality. I don't think it can be reasonably disputed that admins can, do and have blocked 24h+5m fourth reverters, and been supported in doing so. Does anyone other than you object to pointing this fact out? - David Gerard 18:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many of you know of my general objection of how the whole 3RR thing is being done; however, to the specific issue. I rule is a rule is a rule. This is the nature of both law and protocol. People on any side of a rule or law will try to "game" it. 24 hours means 24 hours. If someone reverts at 24 hours + 1 minute, that is the first revert of a new cycle. What's acceptable when you say 24 hours? 24 hours and 15 minutes? Then do you block someone at 24 hours and 16 minutes? Get a grip, people. This is severly going against more long-standing Wikipedia culture of dealing with editors in preference to punishing. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If editors start playing bloody silly 24h+5m games they need to be punished, in my opinion. Stamp on a few of them hard for acting like that and you'll get less of that nonsense in the future. Editors really should not be getting anywhere *near* to three reverts in 24 hours, let alone four. recent arbcom rulings have supported that interpretation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If admins play bloody silly 24h+5 games looking for editors to block, they should be sanctioned. If we have a rule that says 24 hours, it means 24 hours. You have a much too punitive view of Wikipedia, TOny. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jim, the statement I inserted merely noted the phenomenon, without condoning or condemning it. Clearly there are differences of opinion on the practice, but what is wrong with noting it? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * We're going in circles. Stop adding it.  Do not condone admins who violate the rules.  Use alternate means of addressing aggressive reverts. -- Netoholic @ 21:19, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wasn't adding it, I was asking Jim what his thoughts were. I am sure Jim is both able to respond for himself, and provide a response that is not merely a series of belligerent orders. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  21:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Because, Jay, its simple existence on rule page ipso facto implies it is OK for an admin to do so. We already allow admins discretion to decide to block or not without consideration of an objective standard, which is bad enough; it is improper for an admin to decide that 24h+1m is really 24 hrs., and that too can be selective. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jim, my view of Wikipedia is that editors should not have to learn to be decent in their treatment of the material they're editing. If you think I'm punitive, how do you account for the fact that I don't block for 3RR and don't call for 3RR blocks where I see violations? I do nevertheless think that the only way some editors are going to get down to serious editing is to have their edit war capacity taken away from them. If a couple of other editors are messing things up and they get taken out of circulation for that, it means that those who are more restrained don't have to suffer the consequences of an article protected against all edits just to deal with the miscreants. This gives sysops more flexibility and editors more opportunity to edit, and it stops editors being tempted to use edit wars as a bargain chip, when they should be editing boldly not constantly reverting. Win-win. It's like the speed cameras, really. The only drivers who ever whine about them are those who break the law and are caught. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but speed cameras don't even bother to snap a photo for slight speeding violations. They certainly do not send tickets to those traveling just below the speed limit. -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
 * Not a very good example, then. In three reverts we have a limit that is described as "an electric fence", whereas in my country at least the police regard the speed limit as advisory only and will not prosecute someone for speeding in a 30mph zone unless he's traveling at more than 35mph. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page moves
I was told page moves count as reverts. Eh? --SPUI (talk) 05:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If repeated then yes they areGeni 12:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine any good reason for a page to be moved multiple times a day. (Unless one is fighting page move vandalism, which obviously doesn't count toward the limit.) If users are fighting over where the page should be, it's probably best to list it on requested moves to try to get some consensus as to the article title. Jonathunder 20:06, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Is there consensus on this? After I added it to WP:3RR, it was soon reverted. If it does indeed apply, it's definitely not obvious. --SPUI (talk) 04:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a useless provision. Are we forgetting the fact that evidence of the move is lost as soon as a page is moved back to its original location, over the redirect? -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)


 * The next version of mediawiki will have a move log.Geni 18:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User name space
Does it apply and should it?Geni 13:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It should probably apply on the user's talk page. But on subpages and the main user page, no, I don't believe it should apply. -- Locke Cole ( talk )  (e-mail) 04:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Saying your sorry
I have yet to see a case where someone apologized and the 3RR block was not reduced or avoided entirely. We need to document that fact, so that all editors are aware, not just those that watch WP:AN/3RR or hang out on IRC. -- Netoholic @ 17:05, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * Blocks have been avoided entirely for apologizing? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's already alluded to in the section "I've been blocked under 3RR! What do I do?" --Michael Snow 17:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That section is for after the block, the other sentiment is that blocks can be reduced or avoided even before a block is entered (see WP:AN/3RR, Snowspinner). -- Netoholic @ 17:38, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * It wasn't avoided (Snowspinner still got blocked) and there was no reduction (Snowspinner got the same length of block as his opponent). --Michael Snow 18:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's how I remember it; I don't recall a block being avoided based on a pre-emptive apology. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"may" or "are often" ?
There are a number times where I haven't reduced the block in such a case. You haven't seen them because they were direct contacts by emailGeni 17:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you say that is one, few, some, many, or all ? Even if you didn't lift the block, was it lifted by someone else?  I think that the vast majority are lifted if the offender apologizes.  At least certainly, on WP:AN/3RR, I can see no case which wasn't reduced. -- Netoholic @ 17:38, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)


 * I can remeber only one case where I reduced/removed a block after being contacted by email plus one where I removed a block after a person contacted the mailing list. Neither of these were due to apologies. I don't bleive in any of the other cases the block was lifted by anyone elseGeni 17:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that's the point... it's not whether blocks are lifted early, but how often they are when someone apologizes or expresses regret. -- Netoholic @ 17:57, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Proposed modification
After my run-in on Adolf Hitler with an anon with unlimited IPs (83.109.*.*) who was reverting to an old, non-consensus version, I'm requesting modification of the rules, for the following reasons:
 * It is impossible to enforce 3RR for anons with dynamic IPs, unless you want to block whole ISPs, which most apparently don't support.
 * As a result of this impossibility, an anon on multiple IPs can repeatedly revert a page regardless of how many users try to revert to the consensus version
 * Pages will be needlessly protected, including being protected with the non-consensus content, because the anon may be unlikely to talk on the talk page, or not even interested in consensus (which is the case with Adolf Hitler)

There are probably other reasons, but my fingers are getting tired. My original proposed modification was elaborated by User:nsh on WP:AN/3RR, and would allow a person to revert "bad faith edits", which would include edits reverting to a non-consensus version with no intention of talking on the talk page (we could wait a day for them to respond on the talk page and then revert and consider future edits bad faith if they are of a similar nature, without having to wait another day), or for users repeatedly changing IPs for no apparent reason (the anon on Adolf Hitler changed his IP at least 6 times within a very short period (under an hour, I think).)

I'm not sure if this original proposal will go through, so another, more rational proposal, would be to change 3RR application from blocking the user from making ANY edits for 24 hours to blocking the user from making edits on the specific article(s) on which the 3R took place. This would be a retroactive block in the sense that others would watch the article for the person's edits, and if the person again edited the article in that 24 hour period, THEN they could be considered for full-blocking from all edits. This makes a lot more sense. Comments on either proposal? As it stands, the current policy is lacking, and favors anon POV pushers over good-faith editors. -- brian0918 &#153;  01:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As it stands, the 83.109 who broke 3RR has yet to be proactively blocked from editing for any period of time. -- brian0918 &#153;  01:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Every editor is a natural resource, and that resource is the ability to guard pages from erosion. In some places we have an abundancy of editor resources, but there are some sections of Wikipedia where this natural resource is sparse, and we cannot afford to spread a sparse resource even more thinly without reason. 3RR is applied when people are unable to agree on the content of a particular article, its application should not tarnish their contributions to other articles, especially not to the point of being unable to edit other articles at all. I appreciate that per article blocking may not be possible in the current version of the software, and as such - in the Wiki spirit - am volunteering to write the code if this proposal gains momentum. Let's use our natural resouces in the most efficient manner. nsh 02:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * No change is necessary. If it's clear that someone is simply creating new accounts or dialing up new IPs, they may still be blocked under the three revert rule. As the rule says, use of sockpuppets is not a legitimate way to avoid the three revert rule. In your specific case, the anonymous user didn't violate the rule at all, since they only reverted three times. Blocking them (and violating the rule yourself) was inappropriate. Also, I think it would be great if users could be blocked from editing specific articles, but this isn't technically possible yet. Rhobite 02:07, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * The user reverted 4 times.   . The first reversion was to an old version from back in March, as I said.  -- brian0918  &#153;  02:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, the anon cannot be blocked because their IP use is on too large a range. I supported blocking the range but several others were against it.  This is a sign that people are unwilling to block the range, and so shows that 3RR doesn't apply to dynamic IPs.
 * Also, please note what I said about the 2nd proposal. It wouldn't be enforced by software blocking specific pages, but by other users watching to see if the user edits the page again in 24 hours. If the user does, then he can be considered for full-block for 24 hours. -- brian0918  &#153;  02:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is part of an overreaction to brian0918's short-lived block, during which he argued against an explicit provision of the 3RR (only simple vandalism is excluded), implied I was a "wikinazi" (backed down later) and said that "silsor just wants to block admins to feel good". silsor 02:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Silsor, that was on IRC, and as you said, IRC is not Wikipedia. Besides, how is any of what you state relevant to the proposal?  You are impeding progress one way or the other. -- brian0918  &#153;  02:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, of course I was arguing against the 3RR, as I am now. I am arguing that the policy needs reversion, as is nsh. I await your contribution to the discussion. -- brian0918  &#153;  02:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Silsor. How about we table this suggestion for a while? It's not good to make big, general policy proposals in the heat of a specific dispute. One thing Brian, it doesn't appear that the first anon edit you listed (17:06, Apr 10, 2005) was a revert to any previous version. Which version did it revert to? As for your other point about blocking large ranges - nothing you've proposed would solve this problem. Just because it may not be technically possible to block large ranges without affecting other users, doesn't mean that the 3RR "doesn't apply" to anonymous users. That is simply broken reasoning. Some vandals are unblockable too - that doesn't mean that the vandalism policy "doesn't apply" to them. Rhobite 02:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rhobite, this edit by the anon was actually a reversion to this very old version. I've summarized the issues of consensus and edit history relevant to this case on WP:AN/3RR. Demi T/C 04:29, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't apply to them if it can't be enforced on them. I'm positive that the first edit was a reversion to a previous version.  I recognize those exact words; they are the words I argued against on the talk page. Silsor agrees that the anon made 4 reverts (see WP:AN/3RR, as does Demi, who was also involved on Adolf Hitler back when the text of the 1st reversion was the original text on the page.  If you're not going to bother to enforce it on anons, why should I bother figuring out the exact edit from a month ago?  -- brian0918  &#153;  02:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, how do you propose we enforce the three revert rule against large IP ranges? You haven't made an actual proposal, only a vague claim that it currently "doesn't apply", and a technically infeasible proposal to block ranges from specific articles. I'm all ears, really. Rhobite 03:01, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be simple. Monitor that specific article for 24 hours for its edits and revert any by those who are considered blocked by 3RR. For multi-IP anons, all you could do is revert, and consider blocking the range if he won't stop and talk on the talk page.  For logged in or static IPs, you would block from ALL editing if they edited the page in 24 hours.  This prevents needless restrictions and can be enforced on all users. It is better than the current state, which has no enforcement on anons like that at Adolf Hitler.  What's stopping him from reverting over and over besides the protection (which prevents legitimate editing and is unnecessary because the anon isn't going to talk on the talk page). -- brian0918  &#153;  03:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If we argue over what constitutes "simple vandalism" then think of the disagreements over "bad faith edits." I don't agree that the anon was making bad faith edits, by the way: I believe they think they were reverting to a previous, superior version before Tony Sidaway, myself and brian0918 started "interfering." In other words: bad faith to me would be someone that's trying to degrade or damage the Wikipedia, while I think the anon thinks he's improving it. In any case, I can't imagine an unambiguous enough definition of "bad faith" to be useful in a case like this. Demi T/C 04:44, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
 * Bad faith would be someone who knowingly repeatedly reverts a non-consensus version without discussing on the talk page. -- brian0918 &#153;  05:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Per-page blocks, on the other hand, it seems to me would be a good tool to put in the admins' hands, and not just for 3RR. Demi T/C 04:44, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)


 * If this modification goes through then almost everyone who breaks the three revert rule will claim they were reverting bad faith edits. In practice the current rules cover this one anyway. Socks of blocked users may be reveted on sight so you just get a statement that that person is formaly blocked (even if for technical reasons they can't be) then revert away. Frankly I see no reason why the 3RR should be altured to help 4th rate edit warrioursGeni 12:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I just figured some credit should be given to someone who was reverting to a consensus version of the page, as opposed to someone who was just reverting for the hell of it, with no intention of discussion. Did you read my 2nd proposal? -- brian0918  &#153;  15:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you read the meta article on the wrong version (every seems to think their version is consensus)? your policy risks giving the advantage to those who are treating the article as thier article. In the end if it is vandelism you can revert it and if it is extream POV you should be able to find someone to throw in a few reverts. If you can't then you probably don't have the consensus you think you have.Geni 16:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag
Does the 3RR apply to restoration of the NPOV tag?

The article on Aesthetic Realism has been relentlessly edited by adherents of this philosophy, who want the article to accept the claims of the proponents as fact and to denigrate all critics, especially those who charge that Aesthetic Realism is a cult. Because the article is so biased, its neutrality is legitimately challenged. Some recent edits removed the NPOV tag. I have restored it. Does the 3RR mean that I can restore the tag only three times per day? I suppose I could claim that its removal wasn't a good-faith edit, but anyone removing it would of course angrily retort that the removal was in good faith. One problem is that Aesthetic Realism is a fairly insignificant viewpoint (few adherents, little influence on other schools of thought), so the article is an unimportant one that attracts almost no attention from any editors who aren't involved in the group. My feeling is that, if after three reverts I can no longer correct a biased statement in the article, I should at least be able to continue to warn the reader about the situation. JamesMLane 18:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Clarification
Can we clarify that a revert is, as explained in Revert, a reversion to any previous version, not just a reversion of the most recent edit? What I mean is, if editor X logs in after a night off, finds that the article he is working on is not to his taste and puts it back to his preferred version, this is revert one, even if there are intervening edits between the version he is reverting to and the one immediately previous to the revert.

Can we also clarify that an edit made that reinserts essentially the same material, even if slightly reworded, is nonetheless a revert.

The latter is of course an effort to game the system but I think we should be explicit that this is not permitted. Grace Note 07:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Despite attempts by the querulous to remove all mention of how the rule is actually enforced in practice, I've put in a wording that is, I hope, sufficiently descriptive rather than prescriptive - David Gerard 20:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've further edited this. As I said in my edit summary, "gaming" the rule wasn't defined at all, and anyway, admins rarely block for gaming. Even when they do, those blocks are often reversed because of the ambiguity and lack of agreement on whether there was gaming involved. The only safe thing to say is that if there is a repeated pattern of "gaming", ArbCom usually will look into it. -- Netoholic @ 20:58, 2005 May 10 (UTC)


 * I've blocked for gameing and not had the block pulled. Stateing what counts as gameing is a really bad idea since it simple encourages edit warriour to find new methods of gameing the system.Geni 12:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: any revert in the same article?
I'm one of those who assumed that the policy is meant to stop editors from doing the same revert more than 3 times in one article. We have a translation of this policy in HuWiki and we just had a problem where there were 2 parties involved first reverting Section A 3 times, then making some edits and then reverting Section B 3 times (both of them).

Do I understand correctly that according to the policy, they both must be blocked?

If the answer is yes, than is it possible to make this explicit in the text of the policy? (Maybe it's a language problem, but still.)

Thanks, nyenyec &#9742; 14:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * a revert is a revert is a revert. It doesn't matter which version you revert to.Geni 16:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk enforcement
Well, it appears that we are allowing the 3RR to be suspended to enforce the result of a vote on content. Should we change the 3RR to recognize these "talk page votes" on content and suspend it to allow its enforcement? I didn't see any discussion of this on the policy pages (specifically, here) but I may have missed something. Demi T/C 22:40, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)


 * the shear size of that vote (and it went well beyond the tlak page in terms of recruiteing voters) means it is a special case.Geni 10:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wording of the Gdansk exception
User:Mzajac changed the Gdansk exception to read (whole paragraph quoted):
 * After making a reversion, do not do so again more than twice within 24 hours of the initial one. This policy does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism. Reverts intended to perform maintenance&mdash;such as on the Introduction or the Sandbox&mdash;are likewise allowed. Another exception are reverts allowed under the circumstances outlined in Talk:Gdansk/Vote, although you'll have to muddle around for a while before you can figure out what this exception really means.

As I understand it, the Gdansk exception is clearly a good rule, it deserves to be made comprehensible. My wording would go:
 * ''Reverts intended to maintain community consensus with reagrds to proper names are also exempt under this rule, although tis exception, which we call the Gdansk exception is new and its precise applicability is still being negotiated.

Is that an acceptable wording? --- Charles Stewart 13:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR was passed by oh something like 159/28. The Gdansk exception was buried in a vote on naming a city and was only supported 50/28. I have no idea why this latter figure was judged to be a consensus, but in any case it is obviously nowhere near strong enough to override the very strong consensus on 3RR and actively condone edit warring over city names. I don't edit war so while I've commented it out for now I will leave the matter there, having made my point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute the point about the vote, but I do dispute the analysis. Far from condoning edit warring, by permitting only one side exemption, it should provide a disincentive to revert wars.  --- Charles Stewart 14:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A nice idea but it still fuels edit warring. See for instance Battle of Swiecin (edit history) where there was recently a squabble over whether to follow  the royal city of Gdansk  by the parenthetic note  (German:Danzig) . I'm sure that one side would have wanted to claim that the Gdansk exception applied in that case, but I'm not at all sure that it should because there was no attempt to assert that the name of the city Gdansk was incorrect, simply to clarify that this is the same city that is known widely from the German as Danzig. Needless to say it was a pathetic squabble and no doubt a taste of more to come. We should not risk exacerbating such squabbles by making petty exceptions to our well understood policies--and least of all on such flimsy votes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I see the hairiness and I am convinced it is not a good exemption. --- Charles Stewart 15:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It gets worse: Dresden (edit history). I found this example on WP:PP just now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * nah by the standards of the disspute that's pretty minor.Geni 17:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my glib edit to the page. I was refreshing my memory about the 3RR in regards to a question which coincidentally seems to be somehow related to the Gdansk article's naming format (not its title). The text I found was not only unhelpful, but confusing. I added my remark because Having read the proposed wording above, I still don't know what "the Gdansk exception" means. Maybe it's a good rule, but if it can't be made self-evident in one sentence, then it will only cause confusion and controversy, and should be left out. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-10 16:58 Z 
 * This page didn't even attempt to explain the Gdansk exception.
 * I clicked on the link, but was sent to a discussion page section with no immediate hint as to what the exception meant.
 * It looked like I would have to wade through a whole bunch of discussion just to (possibly) figure it out, so I didn't bother.


 * on the basis we can't seem to make the 3 revert rule itself self evidant in one sentance this may be tricky. However "reverting to the version that was decided by the vote" is probably your best bet. Of course this may require disscression on the part of the admins.Geni 17:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the vote in favor of the Gdansk exception was misdeclared. 50 supported and 28 opposed, making just 64%. It doesn't even meet a very generous 2/3. I suggest we just leave the 3RR (which I agree is complicated enough) as it is, and the German/Polish dispute people can try to work their differences out at local level. Although I've no doubt it was well intentioned, the vote on the Gdansk exception enforcement has made the situation even murkier than it was before. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend caution with Gdansk vote, until the Survey policy is improved - see Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. Due to inconsitencies in the policy, the Gdansk vote is disputed, and currently both sides of the disputy claim immunity from 3RR and revert what they want. This must be fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Up to ? 24h
Our rule states 'after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours'. Is there any binding rule, suggested policy or custom determining the exact lenght of the block? What if there is no consensus between sysops for the lenght? If there is no rule, what to do in cases when one sysop block a given user for 24h, other determins the block is too long and lifts it before the 24h expires? See Administrators%27_noticeboard for specific case I am involved in, but note I raise this issue here as a general question for future reference. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's up to admins to decide among themselves what period of block is most applicable. Any admin may reduce or even completely lift a block if the blocked editor expresses contrition and promises to be good in future.  Conversely, a block that is believed to be too short may be lengthened.  Admins are chosen because they're believed to be capable of interacting well with others, so such disagreements are usually resolved in a very civilised manner. We don't like to make our rules too tight, we like to give admins, just as our editors, some discretion and room for civilised disagreement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * most block for 24 hours since it is the only way to deal with issues of time zones.Geni 15:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are issues with timezones? I don't notice to be honest because I've got my timesone set to UTC, which is my home zone for six months of the year anyway. I've had no problems. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that if someone breaks the 3RR just before they log off for that day blocking for 12 hours may have no effect.Geni 12:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh you mean because they'll go to bed and come back next morning? Well that in itself has the same effect as a block, rendering the difference superfluous. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User pages
I've noted that the 3RR generally isn't applied to editors reverting changes to their own user page space. When the querulous have tried placing such reversion on WP:AN3 (generally "he reverted my changes to his page four times! ban him!"), they have generally been told to go away and stop being silly - David Gerard 13:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I wish it was more consistent (re: Anthony), but I think most people generally agree with this principle. -- Netoholic @ 15:34, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

I think the current wording is a hostage to fortune. Just wait for someone to start an edit war in his own user space and then report the other parties for 3RR. Also I don't see the point--why let people edit war anywhere? In my view this principle should be watered down somewhat at the very least, or perhaps accompanied by a warning about the folly of indulging in provocative or disruptive behavior anywhere on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Concur. There's certainly "creep" towards use of User pages in a way that ought not to be given infinite "user space" latitude -- e.g., as RFA complaints, as mini-Wikiprojects, as "banks"...  I'd prefer to look at it as a broader definition of what's reasonably "vandalism" on user pages (it's my user page, and I don't want that there), rather than narrowing the scope of the 3rr per se.  Alai 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mmmmmm. I put that wording in with a "generally" and clearly phrased to show it's descriptive. If people actually start testing severely, we can get detailed at that time - David Gerard 10:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem in the wording of the exemption for User Pages: The phrase "user page space" is used. The grammar of this phrase makes "space" refer to only a single page, the user page. If the exemption is meant to apply to the user's talk page as well, then the exemption needs to be reworded to make this clear. Having said that, let me now say that I don't believe the exemption should apply to the user talk page, especially if it is the talk page of an anonymous user. The reason is that the user's talk page is a communication channel that will contain any warnings from admins. It may also contain other evidence referred to in an AfC or an AfAr or Arbcomm proceeding. Users should not have unlimited freedom to delete such material. (This is not a merely hypothetical problem. A user who is the subject of a current Arbcomm proceeding has been doing precisely this with his own talk page today.) --Nate Ladd 02:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked user returning through a known sock
What if two users are both blocked for 3RR violation and one of them returns through one of his known sockpuppets, but doesn't resume the revert war (just starts complaining about the block). Does hiw sock need to be blocked, too for the original period (e.g. 24h)?

Thanks, nyenyec &#9742; 04:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, the 3RR, like any other policy, applies to users, not to accounts. --Carnildo 06:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the sock should be blocked, and the block counter reset for a full 24 hours. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I think in theory it's against the text of the policies, since if I understand correcly autoblocking and blocking of known socks only applies to bans but not blocks and what the admin gives for a 3RR violation is a block and not a ban. Could you help me clarify this on the blocking policy talk page? Thanks, nyenyec &#9742; 02:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exemptions from the 3RR rule
What is the procedure for specific edits to get exempt from the rule please ? Who decides about this ? --Lysy (talk) 4 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)


 * No procedures, or no exempts at all ? Anyone ? --Lysy (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Same as any exception to any rule, get community support for it. As things stand however, it's just vandalism and possibly edits by hard-banned users, though I'm not sure if that last one was ever codified. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 01:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe all exceptions to 3RR should be explicitly mentioned in the WP:3RR section. Otherwise, having a section mentioning only examples of exceptions can be misleading as usually people would assume the list is exhaustive. --Lysy (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add the result of Talk:Gdansk/Vote as a notable exception to the list. It's clearly missing here and until it's officially mentioned among exceptions, it seems to contradict the 3RR policy. --Lysy (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The Gdansk "vote" is a very controversial exception. I'd ignore it if I were you; edit warring over the Polish pages can still get you blocked. --Tony Sidaway Talk 05:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous reverts
I propose to lower the limit of 3 to only one revert within 24h for anonymous edits. This would help limiting the number of edit wars with people evading the 3RR by means of dynamic IP allocation. --Lysy (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Suppose we count all anons as equal, so that only 3 anon reverts in 24 hrs are allowed. --Zero 09:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What if they're reverting both ways? Also, how what would happen when the limit of three was hit? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  17:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm supposed to have all the answers ;-)?  I guess the idea would be that an anon who made a revert that was already done 3 times by an anon (same or different IP) in the same 24 hr period could be blocked right away.  The situation that occurs is when one IP reverts 4 times, gets blocked, then comes back as a new IP to continue reverting.  We should be able to block the new IP immeditately without waiting for 4 reverts, and without needing to verify they are the same person.  But I haven't thought this through very much.  --Zero 00:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So we'll train anons who only have a limited number of IPs to create more sockpuppets (you can still create a fresh sockpuppet for each revert and come off scot free unless people make assumptions based on behaviour that you're the same people, so that's going to be necessary anyway). I'm all for building better mousetraps, but I don't think we need ply ourself to traing better mice. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 01:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Allow only single revert/24h per IP. If this is exceeded, apply regular enforcement on the IP. If one has to play reverts, he should get himself a userid. If someone wants a sockpuppet, he'd get one anyway, but that's easier to trace as the sockpuppets are fresh. Similar revert limitations could apply to new usernames (having less than X edits). --Lysy (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of my revert
For 203.xxx, I reverted your copy edit because some of the wording seemed slightly to water down how strictly the rule is applied. You referred to a "rule of thumb" at one point, and also wrote: "If you feel you need to ... exceed the 3RR rule, please seek the opinion of reputable Wikipedians," which might be interpreted to mean that it's sometimes okay to violate it so long as reputable Wikipedians say so. ;-) I'm sure that's not what you meant, but someone might read it that way. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey there, I'm relieved to have stumbled across your post, as the blanket revert without apparent comment was a bit on the nose. But point taken. Anyway, the introduction still requires polish, so I've had another go. 203.198.237.30 08:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by Lysy
Lysy has added the result of the Gdansk vote to the policy page. I have reverted for reasons that were discussed under "Gdansk enforcement" above. There doesn't seem to be any clear policy consensus on Gdansk, so it would be misleading to put that as an exception to the 3RR. --Tony Sidaway Talk 05:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This way it's left inconsistent now. I think we should get over it one or the other way. Otherwise the issue will keep returning over and over again. Either it should be explicitly mentioned as an exception here, or the note on the Talk:Gdansk/Vote mentioning it being exempt should be amended (removed?). I've just witnessed the unnecessary confusion it caused yesterday here. Such things would not happen if it was mentioned as I just tried to do. BTW, note my comment there which would not be justified had we mentioned the exception in the policy. --Lysy (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's just fine to leave it as it is. It would be difficult to dissuade editors from displaying that misleading notice, so I'm not going to try any more than I already have--the problem it causes is too minor. But if there is a bad edit war I don't think there will be many sysops (speaking for myself as a sysop who seldom enforces 3RR) who would regard the vote as an excuse for edit warring. --Tony Sidaway Talk 03:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's wait and see. Based on what I've seen recently, I'm afraid you might be wrong :-( --Lysy (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It may be cleaner to regard the Gdansk consensus as having defined certain kinds of edits as vandalism. Vandalism is already an exception to the 3RR rule, so there is no need to carve out a special exception which applies only to the Gdansk type of revert. Jonathunder 17:00, 2005 September 4 (UTC)


 * Do you think this interpretation might be included in the template itself ? --Lysy (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I think that would needlessly clutter the template. Jonathunder 17:48, 2005 September 4 (UTC)


 * It would not have to be cluttered, if the disputed message about 3RR exemption would be replaced with the warning about vandalism. It would bot be simplier and at the same time we'd avoid the current conflict with the official policy. --Lysy (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The warning would have to state that, as a result of a certain vote, certain specific kinds of edit had become enshrined in Wikipedia policy as vandalism.


 * Now when we talk about 3RR I don't really have much of an opinion because, as a sysop, I have chosen not to enforce that rule. But when you talk about an edit changing the name "Danzig" to "Gdansk" or vice versa being described as vandalism, my opinion does come into play.


 * (Just to make sure that I understood you correctly, it's about exemption from the rule, so how could this be enforced ?)


 * By the official count, the vote wasn't anything even close to consensus. Why should I respect the opinions of the 44 who apparently did believe that such edits should be treated as vandalism, in the face of the 28 who apparently did not?


 * There is nothing intrinsically vandalistic about such edits, indeed to me it's clear that they're the stuff of simple content disputes. They should be treated as such. --Tony Sidaway Talk 20:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is a fairly strong word on Wikipedia. Can it be redefined by a 44-28 vote? --Tony Sidaway Talk 18:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, all right. I understand that we cannot classify it as vandalism (seems an overkill indeed). But earlier you said that we cannot make it into official policy either, as the consensus status is disputed. I believe there must have been a wide consensus on this, otherwise how would the message about 3RR exception make it into the template in the first place ?


 * I just would like the policy to be clear on this. --Lysy (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm probably being very dense here, but could someone explain why we need this exemption? We handle people who edit war with lots of sock puppets every day without needing to be exempt from the 3RR. Block where needed, protect where necessary. Lather, rinse, repeat. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 22:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Lysy, it seems to have found its way into the template because somebody wrote it in there and nobody has successfully written it out yet. There may be a few people who accept 42-28 (or whatever) as a consensus; they're probably not too thick on the ground--particularly if you're talking about redefining vandalism.

I agree with fvw that we don't need no steenking exemption. If there should be a significant edit war then it will be stopped by a combination of blocking and page protection, and nobody will be sitting around counting out precisely who spelled Gdansk/Danzig the right way on the right article. Honestly if it were up to me all German or Polish speakers would be permitted to express their preference and we'd have Danzig and Gdansk macros to render the name in the spelling of choice. --Tony Sidaway Talk 23:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it, I cannot see why this exemption is needed. I would think that it either prevented the editwars or made the life of a sysop easier, but from what I've seen it does neither. Instead it creates confusion/blocking/unblocking/complaints etc. I start to suspect that in fact it might trigger edit wars instead of preventing them. Well, you're right that no exemption is needed for not blocking a user, so what is it for. But then, in order to get rid of it we would have to admit there was no consensus on it. This is also fine as far as I'm concerned. It seems it was done wrong in the first place, so now it may be difficult to undo. I have to admit I start to feel lost. --Lysy (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

What's done is done. It'll just have to be worked around. --Tony Sidaway Talk 03:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice
Once more there seems to be a little squabbling about the Gdansk/Danzig argument. A few months ago a few interested parties got together and hammered out some kind of agreement by a system of straight majority votes. Fine if they can get it to stick. However one of the terms said that the 3RR should be suspended in the case of edit warring over Danzig/Gdansk, but only for the party reverting to the form fixed by the vote. This resolution ("VOTE: Enforcement") was recorded as supported by 44 editors and opposed by 28--only a majority. This seems to me to be a poor reason for suspending the 3RR. I'd be interested in comments on this. --Tony Sidaway Talk 18:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As I stated already before, I believe this exception should be clearly mentioned in the official policy page. Otherwise we can be certain of more confusion and unnecessary discussion each time the exception is applied. I admit both the character of the exception and the way it was introduced might seem questionable, though. Such doubts, however, are only yet another reason to make it official asap. --Lysy (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This needs to be integrated into official policy somehow. --Merovingian (t) (c) 18:15, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Tony Sidaway's point was there's no consensus for this. -- Joolz 18:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is the case, then the note about being exempt should be removed from the template. One way or another, it has to be consistent with the policy. --Lysy (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice if we could all arrive at a consensus on that notice. I think it's misleading at best to imply that the result of the vote was an enforceable exception to the 3RR. There will most likely be some sysops who go along with it and others who don't. --Tony Sidaway Talk 03:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Lysy, there needs to be conformance with policy, in one direction or another. Currently we have the situation that what started out as an article-space straw poll, has started characterising itself as some sort of ersatz policy. And as Tony and Joolz say, there wasn't a clear consensus either way. IMO this should either be "demoted" to a purely advisory notice, or placed on a naming convention page as a policy proposal, for ratification. (FWIW I've in several cases editted in line with the recommended wording, but certainly not the super-reverting codicil.) Alai 07:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole point of having the vote and the rule was to avoid sterile edit wars. An agreement with no means of enforcement is useless. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  08:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, as it seems it does not do its job well, then. While I find the whole voting and its results highly controversial and far from any consensus, I believe its outcome should be explicitly mentioned or at least referred to in the policy to make it official beyond the doubts. --Lysy (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Most of the proposals received a clear outcome exceeding more than 2/3rd of the votes. There are only two proposals outcomes that can be argued about. Regarding exceptions for the 3RR rule, this proposal was included to provide some level of enforcement short of a block of the user going against comunity consensus. This proposal was supported by a simple majority, and many of the opposing votes stated that they would have supported if the wording would have been different. Regardless if this is a simple majority or a supermajority, I would not block anybody if 50% or more of the voters oppose a block (in dubio pro reo). I agree with Lysy that this should be mentioned on the 3RR page, or maybe we even need a general amendment that reverts to establish community consensus as determined by a vote are excluded from the 3RR. -- Chris 73 Talk 21:26, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a more general solution as you suggest, would be better. The caveat is that we then end up again with the "what is a community consensus?" discussion. For Gdansk/Vote we've had 44:28 (or 61%) majority. Some might claim there was a consensus, while others might object it. Any ideas ? --Lysy (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Accidental 4th revert
I'm tempted to add this:


 * I've just reverted a fourth time, but haven't yet been blocked. What should I do?


 * Undo your revert immediately and the administrators are likely to forgive you.

Any objections? I have actually accidentally done 4th reverts and undone them, but I don't think anyone noticed anyway. In any case I think people correcting their own behaviour is something we should encourage. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Is intro paragraph correct?
The intro paragraph says ''The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion. (This does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism.  When I look at the reversion article, it says A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time''.

Surely the 3RR is not meant to use such a strict definition of "revert", is it? To me, that exact wording implies that one could continually insert (or remove) a controversial tag, and as long as intervening unrelated edits are kept, it's not a violation of 3RR. Am I reading things incorrectly, or should that wording be changed? Friday (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)