Misplaced Pages

:Three-revert rule: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:38, 15 January 2007 editJohn Broughton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,683 edits rv. I don't think "provisionally" adds any value (and could confuse things); the sentence starts "generally not enforced" and mentions a "principle"; both allow for exceptions← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:05, 10 September 2023 edit undoGrumpylawnchair (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,449 edits Undid revision 1174703418 by 2601:205:457C:3920:F19A:D27F:4B2B:3BBB (talk) Reverting unexplained content removalTags: New redirect Undo 
(395 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
{{policy|]<br/>]}}
{{policy in a nutshell|]ring is not productive. Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be ] from editing.}}
{{Policylist Behavioral}}


{{Rcat shell|
The '''Three-revert rule''' (or '''3RR''') is an official policy which applies to all ]s. 3RR violations are reported ].
{{R to section}}

{{R with Wikidata item}}
The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three ], '''in whole or in part''', on a single Misplaced Pages page within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.
}}

Using ] (multiple accounts owned by a single user) to avoid this limit is a violation of ].

== Detail ==
], in this context, means '''undoing, in whole or part, the actions of another editor or other editors'''. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words, or even one word (or punctuation mark).

This policy <U>does not apply</U> to self-reverts, correcting ], reverting the edits of a banned or blocked user, or other specific scenarios listed in the '''Exceptions''' section below.

This policy <U>does apply</U> to repeatedly moving, deleting, undeleting, or recreating a page. All of these, if done excessively, are forms of edit warring; repeatedly deleting or undeleting is considered ].

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, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.

Use common sense; do not participate in an ]. Rather than exceeding the three-revert limit, discuss the matter with other editors. If any of them come close to breaching the policy themselves, this may indicate that the page should be ] until ].

The policy is applied independently to each page; reversions are not counted cumulatively across multiple pages. For example, if an editor performs three reversions on each of two articles within 24 hours, that editor's six reversions do not constitute a violation of this policy, although it may well indicate that the editor is ].


'''Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count.'''

==Intent of the policy==
The three-revert rule is intended to stop ]. It ''does not'' grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique, it is '''not an entitlement''', but an "electric fence". Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users ''may'' be blocked for excessive reverting does not necessarily mean that they ''will'' be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times ''may result in a block'' depending on context. Furthermore, making reversions just outside of the twenty four hour "deadline" may still result in a block; Wikipedians take a dim view of people attempting to ] or ].

If you find you have reverted a page even once in a day it may be a sign there is a problem and you should try ], starting always with the article's ].

It is '''strongly''' recommended that you revert any particular change no more than once (''see'' ]).

Historical incidents are of no interest &mdash; please do not report anything other than current and ongoing problems.

==Exceptions==
Reverts that are not contentious and don't contribute to edit warring are generally considered to be exceptions to the three-revert rule. When claiming a revert is not contentious based on one of the types of non-contentious reverts below (reverting edits made by a banned user, for example) it is wise to include a note in the edit summary explaining this, because the blocking admins may not be familiar with the dispute. Note that ] in an attempt to stretch reverts to 'arguably fit' one of the exceptions below is frowned upon and should be avoided. Note that in most of these cases, the most efficient course of action is to report the abusive user, not to revert interminably.

===Reverting without edit warring===
As the purpose of this policy is to prevent edit warring, it should not be taken to apply in cases where it is clear that no edit warring has taken place. For instance, consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert. Likewise, if there ''are'' intervening edits but they are clearly unrelated or non-contentious, such as a bot adding an interwiki link to a foreign language version of the page, this does not increase the 'revert count'.

===Self reverts===
Sometimes users will revert one of their own edits because they discovered they were in error or changed their mind. This is not counted as a revert for purposes of determining 3RR violations. Indeed, self-reverting may actually allow a user to avoid a block for 3RR violation. See, "]" below.

===Reverting edits from banned or blocked users===
Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Misplaced Pages in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy. This does ''not'' mean that if someone is blocked for 3RR that you may then revert them with immunity.

===Reverting pages in ''your'' user space===
The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to user page space accorded them (this includes associated talk pages and subpages), on the principle that although ], your user space is "yours" (for project-related purposes).

Some people consider it bad form to remove comments (other than ]) from your Talk page except to archive them. Other people with very busy talk pages (such as ]) remove every comment once it is read. Such comments stay in page history.

When in doubt, currently it is unfortunately unwise to revert. ] over reversions in your user area have been interpreted as disruption on either side.

===Reverting for maintenance===
There are a few pages, such as the ] or the ], which new users are encouraged to edit, but which must then be periodically 'cleaned up' to clear out accumulated comments and/or restore instructions. In addition, putting up/removing {{tl|backlog}}, {{tl|adminbacklog}}, or other uncontroversial tags (not involved in a content dispute) are not contentious. Reverting such pages to the 'clean' form for maintenance purposes is not contentious.

===Reverting simple vandalism===
In general, reverts that, in the judgement of the reviewing administrator, are reverts of ] (including graffiti, link spam, et cetera) are not usually considered to be contentious. Contentious vandalism reverts may still fall under 3RR.

Repeated reverts, even of simple vandalism, cause disruption, disputes, and result in unhelpful entries within the ]. For these reasons, when a pattern of ongoing, regular, or repeated vandalism is established, it should be dealt with in the long term preferrably by switching to ''']''' of vandalistic editors, or ''']''' for articles being attacked, with cessation of reversion once this is granted.

(Note: Page protection will usually only be appropriate for vandalism from several different sources simultaneously, since it also disrupts the actions of genuine editors.)

Non-administrators, who cannot block users or protect pages, may make requests for blocking of vandals at ], and requests for protection at ]. Repeated reversion of an article to deal with vandalism should be considered a last resort.

Note that reverts in edit wars in which one side describes the other side's edits as vandalism are generally not only contentious reverts, but are also ]. Blocking can be expected in such cases.

===Reverting potentially libellous material===
All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or potentially libellous information about living persons, whether within a ] or elsewhere, including associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection, and repeated reversion should be used only as a last resort. Reverts made to enforce this provision are generally not considered contentious, because they are necessary. However, it can be easy to confuse removing potentially libellous material with an edit war over ] issues, which are contentious edits. ''Err on the side of caution:'' do not repeatedly remove material you consider defamatory unless it is blatant, and seek intervention from others ''early'' at ].

===Reverting copyright violations===
Proven ] should be removed, as they expose the Wikimedia Foundation to possible legal action.

==Enforcement==
A ] passed to give further enforcement power to this rule:
<blockquote>If you violate the three-revert rule, after your '''fourth''' ] in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeat violation. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.</blockquote>

Additionally, this rule is enforced by:
*Educating users who may not be aware of good Misplaced Pages practice in the matter.
*Peer pressure and leadership by example.
*Where pages are protected due to revert wars, admins may protect pages on the version disliked by those who have engaged in excessive reverts. See ]. The admin also has the option to protect the current version, thereby maintaining a sense of neutrality.

Violations of the three-revert policy can be brought to the attention of administrators at the ].

Chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the ]. This can also apply to those that try to test the limits of the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside the 24-hour time period, or by making ''complex reverts'' which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording.

Administrators blocked under this provision must not unblock themselves.

Blocks may be lifted at admin discretion if the infringing editor expresses regret for having broken the rule.

===Administrator involvement===
Except in cases of ], if an administrator has personally been involved in a content dispute on that page, that administrator should not block the user for 3RR violations. Instead, the administrator in this situation should make a request at the ] if they believe 3RR has been broken.

==I've been blocked under 3RR! What do I do?==
First, check if you actually did make a fourth revert in 24 hours or very close to it.

*If you didn't, you should email the admin who blocked you (or another admin), politely point this out and ask to be unblocked.
*If you did, you should either wait the 24 hours or email the admin who blocked you (or another admin), acknowledge your error, and ask to be unblocked. (The admin may, of course, choose not to.)

Some admins look at the quality of the edits in question; others do not.

] may also apply if you feel there is a clear reason that the edit should not have fallen under ] (ie that the blocking admin made a mistake).

Note that historically, public denunciation of the blocking admin has tended not to gain sympathy. You can, however, report cases of egregious misapplication of this rule to ]; for more serious cases, to the "use of administrator privileges" section in ].

==I've violated 3RR. What do I do?==
If you've broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a talk page note pointing out that you've broken 3RR, then you can ''self-revert'' your change back to the "other version". In general, this should be enough to prevent you being blocked (though there are no guarantees).

==See also==
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages|Misplaced Pages - Three-revert rule.ogg|2005-04-10}}

*]
*]
*]

<!--Category-->
<!--Interlanguage links-->

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 04:05, 10 September 2023

Redirect to:

This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect: When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.