Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:18, 10 June 2006

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Archives
August 2004 – September 2005 September 2005 – June 2, 2006

Related talk pages:

• Misplaced Pages talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version
• Policy vote: per article ban or per user page protection for revert wars?
• Policy vote: 24 hour bans for revert wars?
• Poll: revert wars considered harmful
• Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule enforcement

In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.

I do not like this section. It gives admins blanket power to block anyone they want. All they have to do is arbitrarily call something "edit warring" and block users they dislike/disagree with. anyone have plausible checks to this? Otherwise it must be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MateoP (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

In practice it is a restating of the dissruption clause. The check is other admins.Geni 02:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR confusion

In recent months, I have come across several instances of administrators holding different interpretations of 3RR policy. Looking over the history of this page, it's not difficult to understand why: significant modifications have sometimes been made without consensus discussions taking place beforehead. The current version is qualitatively different from that of 1 January 2006, and I am not certain that it would be accepted by all, or even most, administrators.

I would refer editors specifically to this particular entry from March of this year. This may have been intended as clarification of an existing rule; in practice, however, it may have established a contentious interpretation as official policy. I could list other examples.

It may be adviseable for the Misplaced Pages community to undertake a comprehensive overview of this policy in the near future. Until then, I would suggest that Wikipedians use extreme caution in blocking editors for ambiguous cases involving perceived 3RR violations. It is simply not reasonable to expect every regular contributor to follow the frequent changes to this page. CJCurrie 02:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

On a related matter, I'm genuinely curious where the consensus was established to add Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. to this policy. As long as I've been an administrator, 3RR has applied to reverts of the same material; unrelated reverts were explicitly excluded from the rule. When was this change discussed, and how exactly were people planning to ensure that longstanding administrators knew that there'd been a policy change this significant? Bearcat 02:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That became consensus when that was the way I inforced the rule short after its creation.Geni 11:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose we simply eliminate it, and post a notice on WP:AN to the effect we've done so. Thusfar, it's led to very subjective interpretations of who should or should not receive a block (and if it makes you feel any better, Bearcat, Homeontherange is hardly the first user to be blocked under this interpretation.) Using extreme caution is acquiescence to the introduction of a whole new dimension of subjectivity that simply needn't be here, and will likely lead to more wheel-warring (ahem) in the future.

If 3RR is to be tightened - and I'm certainly open to it - it should be to make it the Two-revert rule. Such a change would be immediately comprehensible to all. This one, while well-intended, plainly isn't, and has generated an unacceptable level of confusion on the noticeboard.Timothy Usher 03:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

To your "dimension of subjectivity" point, I can only respond "not so". The policy does not indicate editors must be blocked for any 3RR violations, let alone for ambigious situations involving recent rule changes. CJCurrie 03:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, editors already can be blocked for one revert, depending on what it is. 3RR is meant to be an "electric fence", not an interpretive judgement call. As in touch it, brrzzzt. Not, maybe brrzzzt.Timothy Usher 03:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by "brrzzzt". The 3RR policy stipulates that more than three reverts by a single editor to a single page in 24 hours is forbidden. It does not stipulate that the editor in question must be blocked. CJCurrie 03:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Another matter:

I've looked over the 3RR page history, and far as I can tell this is the first instance of the phrase "in whole or in part" being added to the policy. I cannot find any prior discussion for this change, which was made less than a year ago.

Did such a discussion occur in a different forum? If so, could someone please direct me to it? CJCurrie 03:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "in whole or in part" is the problem here. 3RR should most certainly apply if there is common text which is being restored or undone, even if it's buried beneath a bunch of other changes. SlimVirgin was on the right track; unfortunately the language about "undoing other editors' work" is hopelessly ambiguous.Timothy Usher 03:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ... you may be right. I suppose "in whole or in part" could be read two different ways (actually, that might be the problem). CJCurrie 03:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's where the "undoing the actions of another editor" clause was added on August 29 last year, but it was added to clarify what admins were already doing: "Reverting doesn't simply mean taking the previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new ..."

This was intended to include complex, partial reverts, where editors revert war by first reverting one part, then changing tack and reverting another, and mixing and matching to game the system. (I'm not saying this was done in the case in question, because I haven't looked at it: I'm making a general point only.) SlimVirgin 03:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That may have been standard practice before August last, but I'm not certain it was formally agreed to as policy.

Anyway, I'll reiterate my previous point -- given the level of confusion concerning the *current* 3RR, it may be useful to revisit the issue in a comprehensive matter. I think TU's point about an announcement of policy may be useful as well. CJCurrie 04:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The other case is where added material is simply rewritten - e.g. "Hitler was a lifelong Catholic", "The Fascist dictator never renounced the faith of his childhood", "The Führer remained loyal to the Pope of Rome", etc. (although I suppose "The" is present in all three...) Conversely, if other editors are rewriting their passages, continued removal should also count. However, this merits more specific language than "undoing other editors' work".Timothy Usher 04:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi CJ, it's been standard practise ever since I became an admin, as I recall. It would make no sense to have a 3RR policy that only included simple reverts of the same material, because it would be too easy to game. All you'd have to do to repeatedly change a section but avoid 3RR, is restore (or delete, depending on what you're trying to achieve) one sentence from it, making a few other edits at the same time; then restore another sentence, also making a few other changes during the same edit, and so on. There would be no end to it if the editor was tricky enough. That's why admins look at the number of times an editor undoes another editor's work on the same article within 24 hours. The point of 3RR is to stop continual reverting of people's work, not only to stop deletion/restoration of exactly the same material. SlimVirgin 04:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand this point, and I'm not opposed to it in principle -- I'm just not certain it was ever formally accepted as policy.

The thing is that policy is what admins are doing in practise. If admins are doing it, and the policy page states it, then it becomes policy by definition. If you want to propose a change, that's fine, of course. Bear in mind too that there were many discussions on AN/3RR during the first few months of its existence, and the policy was moulded by those discussions, and by what was happening in practise as people got used to enforcing it, and seeing what worked and what didn't. It's more of an organic thing than having something formally accepted. SlimVirgin 04:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the current language (useful though it may be) is considerably different from the one I familiarized myself with when I became an admin. I'm concerned that certain assumptions or interpretations by particular editors may have become "policy" by default, without due process for other views. In any event, I'll also reiterate my other suggestion that admins use discretion in blocking editors for perceived 3RR violations, at least in circumstances where the violation may have been accidental or based on an outdated interpretation of the policy. CJCurrie 04:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the clarification helps. The spirit of the 3RR has always been "the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars" - sometimes its not the exact text being reverted, but another change elsewhere that continues the conflict. The wording as it is now may help prevent some edit wars by clearly stating that gaming the system isn't going to get you anywhere. Shell 04:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all opposed to "any reverts count" if that's the consensus; what I'm saying is that as long as I've been an administrator it hasn't been what's been communicated to me in 3RR situations. I can't and won't accept blame for not having previously been familiar with unwritten conventions that differ from the actual practice that I've actually seen undertaken in the specific situations I've been personally involved in. Whether it's always been the spirit of the policy or not, it hasn't been what people have told me when I've been involved in discussion or clarification of the policy. It hasn't been what people have done in the situations I've seen.

Basically, I have to agree with CJCurrie that certain assumptions or interpretations by particular editors may have become "policy" by default, without due process for other views (or, for that matter, any attempt to ensure that people were actually all on the same page.) I'm being faulted here for acting precisely as I'd previously been told was correct, and that's simply not acceptable. Bearcat 05:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Bearcat, let's keep a sense of perspective: this is much bigger than your alleged fault, and even bigger than twelve editting hours of Homeontherange. Not that you don't see this, but just emphasizing, this is about what rules should apply to all editors of Misplaced Pages. I'm for Homey's block, and agree that it proceeds from a straightforward understanding of current policy (i.e., this page) but opposed to exactly that understanding of policy.

It was no big deal, apparently, to change it in May, and I don't see why it's any bigger a deal to change it it June. Let's keep SlimVirgin's improvements while solving the misundertandings that have been the unintended results thereof. Whosoever does this - maybe me - posts on WP:AN. We've some semblance of consensus on this talk page, and that's all we need.Timothy Usher 06:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not failing to keep things in perspective — "this is about what rules should apply to all editors of Misplaced Pages" was exactly my point in the first place. There's been a lack of clarity about what rules applied, but certain people are wrongly dismissing that as the individual misunderstandings of individual editors, instead of realizing that there actually needs to be significantly more clarity in how the rules are communicated. Bearcat 08:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I added some of the disputed text, I'll comment. I'm still in favour of the bits I added. Though 2RR sounds good too. There is, still, even with stricter interpreation, too much edit warring. The overriding rule, IMHO, has always been "don't get close to 3RR unless you want to risk trouble"; if you're sailing close to the wind then you need to be very sure of the rules William M. Connolley 10:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your statement strikes me as somewhat odd in light of this edit , recalled by (now de-sysopped) NSLE's recent action, . The problem with the vague wording is precisely that complaints against editors who routinely sail too close to the wind are upheld or dismissed based on inconsistent interpretations of 3RR, arguably depending on the attitudes towards reporting or reported editors held by whoever is working the noticeboard at a given time.Timothy Usher 18:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I'm not sure I see any of the current wording as vague. Could you say which phrase(s) exactly is/are vague, and could you give an example of when it would not be clear what they meant? SlimVirgin 18:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand TU's comment. 3RR is still not punitive; with the page protected, a block is pointless. Thats pretty std too William M. Connolley 19:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like people to not approach this legalisticly. Lately I've seen several variations of, "okay, that's my three," and "woops, rv self - have to wait another ninety minutes." I'm afraid making the "rule" more explicit will make that problem worse. My feeling is, if you have undone another's work three times in the last day, you are wrong. That is not to say someone else may not be more wrong. It's not that I block for 3RR; I act to stop disruptive edit warring. I might block one malignant troll or two happy warriors, or I might lock the page, or I might ask two reasonable people to not edit the page for a day. If we want to craft a careful definition of "revert", and make a block after four reverts automatic, then let's just do it in software. Tom Harrison 19:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"My feeling is, if you have undone another's work three times in the last day, you are wrong."- the problem is when you say "work", it could be just a very minor edit, but an edit INTENDED to be reverted by another user which that editor is hoping to catch out, such as mentioned by Homey below, adding a dispute tag, adding a link, even just changing spelling from British to American english. Arniep 19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment looks like an assumption of bad faith without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Pecher 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a good reason to suspect bad faith on Zeq's part considering Homey had tried to implement a permanent block on him for his violation of Arbitration Committee probation only 9 days previously. Arniep 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This "policy" needs urgent review

I think we need to realise that certain users or groups of users may be using 3RR as a form of attack to intimidate or silence editors who oppose their position. I think 3RR should take into account the actions of all users involved in reverting, otherwise a user or group of users could make a number of edits deliberately designed to stir up another editor. Then, if a user reverts more than three of these they will get blocked, but that person or persons can then continue to make aggressive edits. This kind of behaviour goes on all the time and this must be taken into account before blocking the supposed "guilty" party. Arniep 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR was always a sticking plaster, both to policy and to individual disputes. Somewhat effective though. Rich Farmbrough 14:36 10 June 2006 (GMT).

The policy is completely flawed as the person who makes the original edit can revert the 3 reverts of their edit by another user, but if the other user then reverts again to restore the article as it was before the first user's edit, they will have violated the 3RR "rule" and get blocked. Arniep 16:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a built-in favor of the one who is adding new material. If material which has been removed is being in some fashion re-added, the first edit is a revert to a previous version. There's no formal timeframe into which previous versions must fall.Timothy Usher 18:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a "built in" favor to anyone. An editor can use the 3RR "rule" to protect themselves by making a provocative edit which the user knows full well will be reverted by another user and the user will "win" either way by reverting back to their version or getting the other user blocked. Arniep 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In my case, I reverted 3x, I then added an "original research" tag. The tag was removed, I put it back and whammo, I was technically in violation of 3RR and banned, unbanned, and then rebanned. Seems a bit extreme to me and seems to me like something 3RR was not intended for. Homey 19:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what 3RR was intended for, Homey: to stop editors constantly reverting to their preferred versions, whether or not it involves adding/deleting the same or different material. 3RR says each editor may do this three times within 24 hours only, but even then, should try to avoid it). SlimVirgin 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As it stands the 3RR "rule" can be used maliciously and in a petty manner, because it is policy, not a guideline, a user knows that if they catch another editor unawares, they can trip them up so they fall onto the trip wire and WOOOO BANG, look what you've done, now your blocked and you can't even post on the noticeboard about it. You are automatically labelled the party in the wrong even if the other user made the edit in a deliberate attempt to start an edit war which the user knew that they cannot lose. Arniep 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous are the accusations that people misuse the 3RR to intimidate others. The policy exists to be enforced; if it isn't, it might just as well not exist in the first hand. Pecher 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes ridiculous isn't it the idea that Zeq had absolutely no reason to feel hostility towards Homey who had tried to implement an indefinite block on him 9 days previously per Zeq's Arbitration Committee probation on Israel related articles. It seems quite clear that Zeq's reporting of borderline 3RR was retaliation for that. Arniep 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Zeq wanted to retaliate or not; the policy must be enforced regardless of the motivations of the people involved. You may be right that Zeq didn't and doesn't harbor any good feelings towards Homey; I assume nobody would harbor good feelings after being treated in such a manner. However, there is no clause in WP:3RR that a report must be discarded because the reporting editor has bad feelings towards the offender. If there were such a clause or if it were an acceptable practice among admins, the policy would be a joke. Pecher 20:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but of course it matters. People can easily trip people up with this "policy" because it is a "policy" not a guideline which is what it should be. The policy as it stands is just a way that certain users try to use to get other users blocked with whom they disagree. Arniep 20:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I think reverting is in general a bad idea, except in the case of vandalism ,I do feel this rule encourages full page reverts as an editor can save their "allowance" and hit all the edits they don't like in one go. I have seen it used to penalize an editor trying to work for concensus whilst another editor stayed out of the way for an hour or so and just wiped the lot in one go. Also I have had a situation where I have been editing and another editor has made an edit and saved before I did so are below me in the edit history. This would break my run of edits unknown to me and so I could then violate 3rr unintentionally. The best rule is to revert once if you feel you have to and then make a lot of noise on the talk page to attract other editors and so get a more varied input into the situation. Sophia 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sophia, I agree about other editors editing behind you during a long run of edits, leading to an inadvertent 3RR violation. Admins who have experience administering 3RR are usually able to see when that's happened. I agree that it's annoying. SlimVirgin 20:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you made four reverts to different sections in a row, say at 18:11, 18:13, 18:16, and 18:18, and if they were reverts that you could have done as a full page revert but didn't want to because you wanted to leave some good changes in place, and if someone made a change to a different section at 18:17, but there was no edit conflict because it was a different section, then I would treat those four as one revert if it were reported at WP:AN/3RR. If, however, you made three consecutive reverts (counted as one), went off and had dinner, came back two hours later, and edited a few more articles, and then went back to the original article (which several other people had edited in the meantime) and reverted something that you could have reverted earlier, then I'd count that as a second revert. I don't think any admin would knowingly block someone who had reverted different sections one after the other as an alternative to a full page revert (which would have reverted some good changes), and who had been unaware that another editor was editing at the same time. AnnH ♫ 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had a situation where I was copy editing, and was doing it bit by bit, so I had a long run of edits in a row. One of the things I was doing was deleting red links because the article had a lot of them. Unknown to me, someone was restoring the red links as I was editing. We weren't getting edit conflicts because we just happened to be saving at slightly different times. I kept seeing the red links back in place and I assumed there was a server problem, or else that I thought I'd deleted them but in fact hadn't, so I kept removing them again. Eventually, I realized someone else was restoring them as I was going along. :-) I don't think any admin would block in that situation because it's pretty clear it's an error. SlimVirgin 20:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about this "policy" the more ridiculous it seems. If I remove 4 pieces of information from four different users from an article in one day is that a violation of 3RR (would I have to check if the four pieces of information were from different users?)? Does it make a difference if I remove them in one edit or 4? If I removed it in one, could I then be reverted three times and then revert to my version again and not violate 3RR? Yet, if I had removed the same information in two edits, I could not revert to my version without violating 3RR, quite frankly the whole policy is a nonsense. Arniep 20:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, nonsense would be an inaccurate term to use here. The whole policy seems grossly inadequate in the description of the rules and conditions which are presented here. --Siva1979 20:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A brief history of WP:3RR as it relates to the matter at hand

Having gone through the history, I can offer the following report describing the evolution of this policy page as it relates to the matter at hand. Please feel free to correct any errors or add relevant points that I’ve missed.

• Let’s look at the very first version of this page . It’s clear that the writer had simple version reverts in mind. Over time, the writing of the policy evolved to prevent gaming of the system. We’ve not the space to discuss all these changes, so I’ll highlight those which seem most relevant to this discussion.

• Jayjg’s edit of 18:12, 6 January 2005 18:12, 6 January 2005 changed "reverting the same page” to "adding/deleting a specific piece of article text", reflected what is now the minimal version of the policy. This was removed within minutes .

• Tony Sidaway’s edit of 01:12, 2 February 2005 added "It does apply to all other reverts on that page during the twenty-four hour period, not just carbon copies of the original revert". This, too, was removed in short order.

• Radiant!’s edit of 09:59, 29 August 2005 added "Reverting doesn't simply mean taking the previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc.". Unlike Jayjg and Tony Sidaway’s previous attempts, this stuck, and was reinforced by Slim Virgin on 02:06, 30 August 2005, which changed "Don't revert any single page more than three times..." to "Don't revert any single page, in whole or in part..." and on 08:10, 3 January 2006. At this point, there can be no doubt that what is now considered the minimal interpretation of 3RR, including any related reverts is established policy. Several attempts to remove this language were reverted by William M. Connolley and Tom harrison on on 21 February.

• William M. Connolley’s passage of 09:53, 13 April 2006, which states, "Note that, for the purposes of counting reverts, successive edits by the same editor are considered to be one...", suggests that he had arrived at a novel interpretation of the Radiant/Slim Virgin policy, as this clarification is completely unnecessary if the reverts must be related (and indeed, as per Sophia’s objection, has some odd side-effects). The interpretation stems from the ambiguity of "Don't revert any single page, in whole or in part..." when what was really meant was, "Don't revert any part of any page..."

• Slim Virgin’s edit of 04:14, 15 April 2006 reads, "A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time; this is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting." This wording seems intended to prohibit gaming the system through such complex partial reverts, but inadevertantly reinforced the maximalist interpretation with the passage “...continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting."

• William M. Connelly’s edit of 15:09, 18 April 2006 added the passage at issue, "There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." We now have the maximalist interpretation of 3RR written into policy. Slim Virgin’s edit of 03:47, 20 April 2006 might be construed as an endorsement of Connelly’s change.

Summary: The original version of the page addressed simple version wars. The inadequacy of this policy to deal with partial reverts was recognized, and several attempts were made to change it before one version, by Radiant! and SlimVirgin stuck. The ambiguities of the language used to prohibit partial reverts created misunderstandings, and ultimately to an expansion of 3RR to include unrelated reverts.

Current problem: This maximalist interpretation is neither broadly understood nor broadly accepted, and has led to the inconsistent application of the policy, an undesirable level of debate on WP:ANI/3RR, wheel-warring and accusations of unfair treatment.

Recommendation: Remove the language counting unrelated reverts, address ambiguities in the partial-revert language which might be construed as supporting the broader interpretation, and post a notice of the changes on the relevant noticeboard(s).Timothy Usher 21:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)