| Revision as of 14:33, 1 November 2007 editCBM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,390 edits →Reverting to undisputed versions: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:24, 1 November 2007 edit undoStephen Bain (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,147 edits archivingNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # ] | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | ||
| ----- | ----- | ||
| Line 21: | Line 22: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| ==WP:BLP and 3RR== | |||
| My understanding of the relatively new policy ] (Biographies of Living Persons) -- in particular the banner that appears on applicable biographical pages -- is that 3RR does not apply when removing libellous or poorly sourced statements. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see this referenced in the 3RR policy page here. Just for the sake of completeness -- and to avoid "differences of interpretation", something about BLP being an exception to 3RR should be added ASAP. ] 01:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Admins guidelines for 3RR? == | |||
| Where are the admin guidelines for 3RR? I noticed this bit on this guidline: ''"Some admins look at the quality of the edits in question; others do not."'' - seems a bit worrying. Sounds like an excuse for overworked admins not to take care over enforcing 3RR. Do some admins not attempt to mediate before enforcing a 3RR request? ] 09:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :most. Mediatetion is not an admin task.] 12:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There is a lot to be said for a certain amount of randomness - it helps keep people straying just up to the boundary ] 13:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Three basic flaws of the 3RR policy == | |||
| These are: | |||
| * 3RR is enforced between individuals, not against competing sides. This encourages the use of meat puppets and factions, such as Muslims defending other Muslims. See e.g. | |||
| * A single revert will block all additions of the other author made since the version which the article is reverted to, even if they might be worthwile. | |||
| * Deleting is easy, writing valuable content is not. The prevailing 3RR policy equates both. | |||
| ] 12:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed policy changes == | |||
| In the spirit of improving wikipedia and keeping in mind that our policies are evolving entities that we may adjust to make things work better here, I'd like to propose a few changes. The theme of these changes is clarity in 3RR and avoiding the ill-will that results from misunderstandings and inequitable policy administration. The changes are: | |||
| '''I''' 3RR template: a template for 3RR placed on user talk page, including length of block, all four revert diffs, warning diff, reporting editor, blocking admin, and link to ANI/3RR page. Diff showing application of this template placed in edit summary of block. Yes this will be more work, but the number of 3RR blocks is not huge, and 3RR should be applied fairly. Wiki policies are not created for the ease of blocking users. | |||
| '''II''' End to blocks for less than 4 reverts: The policy needs to be clear and understandable and err on the side of the editor, not the blocker. An admin may ignore 4 reverts, but he may not block for 2 reverts at will, especially under the catchall guise of "disruption". | |||
| '''III''' Corrolary: end to "3RR gaming" blocks. Admins currently block for less than 4 reverts claiming "gaming". Without a user declaring that he is gaming 3RR, this is an exercise in assuming guilt and often violates both ] and ] | |||
| '''IV''' Warnings: All 3RR blocks must be preceded by a warning on user talk page after 3 reverts. If the user commits a revert ''after'' the warning but within 24h, he/she may be blocked. No revert after the warning? No block. | |||
| '''V''' Vandalism exemption: If an editor claims his reverts are ] related and has a plausible explanation as to why that fits in the vandalism framework, dispute resolution must be pursued, rather than 3RR blocks. The current "obvious vandalism" exemption is too amorphous. | |||
| These all seem reasonable to me, making wiki a more understandable place with less opportunities to engage in factionalism or wonder if a block was legitimate or enacted with an untoward motivation. Thoughts? | |||
| ] 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Absolutely not to I. A simple explanation suffices and this will simply make more work for the blocking admins. Already admins are leary of helping out with backlog at the 3RRV page since verifying 3RRV takes so much time and effort. Also absolutely not to II - when necessary blocks for disruptive editing should occur. The classic example is a 24 hour block for 3RRV and a user comes back and immediately reverts again the same way. There is no reason that should be not blockable. Similarly, users who edit war reverting precisely three times in a 24 hour period every 24 hours repeatedly should be blockable. The response to II also applies to III although I agree that admins are on occasion more likely to apply a gaming block if they dislike the user in question or the user has been disruptive in some other way. IV is simply ridiculous. Among other things it would mean that a user who had been previously blocked repeatedly for 3RRV could simply revert quickly enough to avoid another warning and thus avoid the block. V is clearly related to your recent editing on the J4J article and while I agree that the block in question may have had issues that is precisely why we have an unblock template. On the whole these restrictions would simply be extra opportunities for wikilawyering and arguing over admin actions when we are trying to build an encyclopedia. ] 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the feedback: | |||
| <font color="blue">''Absolutely not to I. A simple explanation suffices and this will simply make more work for the blocking admins. Already admins are leary of helping out with backlog at the 3RRV page since verifying 3RRV takes so much time and effort''</font> | |||
| You seem to be missing the point -- the policies are not here to make it easier for admins to block, but to benefit wikipedia. Requiring reasonable documentation is fair and reasonable and will decrease the likelihood for abuse ''or'' false claims of abuse. Usually this will be just a simple cut and paste of diffs that are already available on ANI/3RR. I haven't seen a real shortage of admins, when reported for 3RR I've been blocked in short order, but, if more admins are needed, nominate someone! We've got thousands and thousands of editors who are doing great work. ] 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <font color="blue">''Also absolutely not to II - when necessary blocks for disruptive editing should occur. The classic example is a 24 hour block for 3RRV and a user comes back and immediately reverts again the same way. There is no reason that should be not blockable. Similarly, users who edit war reverting precisely three times in a 24 hour period every 24 hours repeatedly should be blockable''</font> | |||
| Ahhh, but ] ("large-scale hindrance of Misplaced Pages's ability to function") does not include anything like this in its description, leading to confusion. Imagine the newbie who thinks he is removing POV. Gets blocked, and reads WP:3RR. Now he thinks he knows the rules, when he comes back he cleans up POV again and gets blocked again with zero warning. Quits in disgust and doesn't return. That could cost us a valuable contributor! Better would be to explicitly add this to a 3RR penalty -- e.g. a one-day block plus a one day revert probation. If we all agree, the six-reverts-in-48-hours plan can be written into policy here, rather than be some murkiness that users don't get. Six reverts, a warning, then a block. Simple 'nuff ] 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <font color="blue">''The response to II also applies to III although I agree that admins are on occasion more likely to apply a gaming block if they dislike the user in question or the user has been disruptive in some other way''</font> | |||
| I'll reiterate, assuming someone is "gaming" is assuming bad faith and is uncivil. Imagine you don't "game" but get blocked nontheless. What would your feeling about the block? Fair? Unfair? Capricious? Possibly playing favorites? Would your opinion of wiki be better or worse? Often these blocks don't end edit wars, they just cause a lot of bitterness. Keep in mind that most editors think they are improving articles. ] 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <font color="blue">''IV is simply ridiculous. Among other things it would mean that a user who had been previously blocked repeatedly for 3RRV could simply revert quickly enough to avoid another warning and thus avoid the block. ''</font> | |||
| To what harm? At the worst, the user ends up getting four reverts in instead of three. Not a big problem is it? Remember, the goal is to have understandable policies and prevent bad-feeling between valuable editors and valuable admins, not ensure that no one ever gets in an extra revert. ] 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <font color="blue">''V is clearly related to your recent editing on the J4J article and while I agree that the block in question may have had issues that is precisely why we have an unblock template. On the whole these restrictions would simply be extra opportunities for wikilawyering and arguing over admin actions when we are trying to build an encyclopedia''</font> | |||
| Please don't personalize or denigrate this. These are serious attempts at fixing wikipedia problems. There is now an exemption for "obvious" vandalism, but there's no clear definition of what this means. What's obvious to me might be non-obvious to an admin. Clarity in the policies would prevent many misunderstandings and the negative feelings that result. ] 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : All of our efforts should be focused on making gaming 3RR harder, not easier. To tha end, these proposed changes are all unaceptable. Any user who engages in a revert war should expect to be blocked at any time, regardless of whether they have crossed the 3RR tripwire.. And I say that as someone who has been involved in them on occasion. ] 01:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I - the ] has this already - this is needless bureaucracy. | |||
| :II - reverting is not a right - the point is to stop edit wars. | |||
| :III - this is pointless; users who are gaming 3RR never admit to it. | |||
| :IV - equally pointless bureaucracy; someone who is an experienced editor, or who has been blocked or warned before, should know better. | |||
| :V - ] is clearly defined, and most claims of reverting "vandalism" in edit wars are, in fact, content disputes. | |||
| :These suggestions are all intended to have the exact opposite effect of the intent of 3RR. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You may be missing the point -- for editors to feel they are treated fairly and that wiki is not cliquishly biased against them, they need a clear explanation of policies. Not a "sometimes four reverts will get you blocked, but other times one revert will get you blocked...sometimes if you are in the right that will help, but other times that won't matter...sometimes you'll get a warning, but other times not...". How would you feel if there were a sign that said "2 hour parking", but soemtimes you got a ticket after 20 minutes? | |||
| ::For your specific objections | |||
| ::I <font color="blue">''the ] has this already - this is needless bureaucracy.''</font> -- to the contrary, there is no simple way to see why a user was blocked at some point (say 6 months) in the past. Why would readily available evidence be a bad thing? | |||
| ::II <font color="blue">''reverting is not a right - the point is to stop edit wars.''</font> -- actually the point is to build a good encyclopedia. Capriciously meting out penalties causes bad feelings all around. human societies learned this hundreds of years ago -- people don't like it if they don't know what the rules are. ergo the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, etc. | |||
| ::III <font color="blue">'' this is pointless; users who are gaming 3RR never admit to it.''</font> -- You're missing the effect of accusing and juding an editor guilty of "gaming". The innocent are miffed and lose a little faith in the project. The benefit is minimal and causes admins more work. A better policy would lay out disallowed ''behavior'', not ''interpretations of permissible behavior'' that might lead to blocks. | |||
| ::IV <font color="blue">''equally pointless bureaucracy; someone who is an experienced editor, or who has been blocked or warned before, should know better.''</font> -- A warning requires no extra bureacracy. Actually, it will lessen their load. Here's how: users reporting 3RR violations will place a 3RR warning template on the offending editors talk page after 3 reverts. If there's one more revert, they then report the offending user to ANI/3RR. Some of the time, the warned user will revert that 4th time, but a good portion of the time, the warned user will desist. In that case, a lot of "bureacracy" is saved. It also prevents the ill will that comes from a block. | |||
| ::V <font color="blue">''] is clearly defined, and most claims of reverting "vandalism" in edit wars are, in fact, content disputes''</font> -- This is not about content disputes, but about real vandalism. If there's real vandalism 3RR should not apply. If there's prima facie evidence that the user belives he is removing vandalism dispute resolution comes into play. This sets a more reasonable standard than the current policy -- any random admin deciding what crosses the line between "obvious" and "non-obvious" vandalism. The second pillar of this is refining the definition of vandalism. It's not "clear" as you say. Right now, placing a photo of an elephant on a page titled "cat" is only vaguely covered by the policy. ] 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The 3RR policy is quite clear: '''The three-revert rule is '''not an entitlement''', but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop ]. It ''does not'' grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. 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.''' If people don't want to have bad feelings or ill will, they should stop edit-warring. And one can never cover every possible edit in any policy; that's just a way for wikilawyers to further game the system. It's quite obvious what ] is, and people who are warring over content often make that spurious claim. Giving out "get out of jail free" cards to anyone who claims to be reverting vandalism is unhelpful, as is making the 3RR process so onerous that no-one will bother doing it. People who have been blocked for 3RR often attempt to get the policy loosened up, so that they can continue to edit war. More experienced editors resist those attempts. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jay, the point is not a "get out of jail free card" or "wikilawyering" -- it's to make clear policies that everyone can understand. When wiki first started it had little in the way of policy. But wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy and policies sprouted up (each time with the possibility of more "wikilawyering") and I think we can see all see wiki has prospered under policies. Let me give you an example of a policy: a speed limit. Now in the beginning people could drive as fast as they wanted "as long as it was safe". But people crashed and killed other people -- accidents happen. So we made speed limits they made sure that people drove under 25 mph near schools, etc. Now we have less lawyering than before. People aren't going into court claiming that it is safe to drive 70 mph in front of kindergarneters, because the policy is clear. They drive the limit and kindergarteners don't get run over. They also don't go home and whine about how they got a ticket while they were driving safely but some cop had it in for him because of some family feud and how the government is ruining everything and they don't hatch plans to overthrow the government. That's how this policy will work: it will lay out very clear rules for behavior. People will follow these rules and won't end up grumbling about rouge admins and librel cabals because there won't be room for abuse or misinterpretation. We may eventually reach the point where the policy is clear enough it can be enforced through software. This will be somewhere down the road, but we can make the first steps with clarifying the policy and removing the grey areas that are the source of much contention. ] 04:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''If there's real vandalism 3RR should not apply.'' Right, already covered -- there's no need for the self-serving exception which renders the word "vandalism" utterly void of meaning. | |||
| ::Such as? | |||
| :::What, you don't remember what you suggested? Your utterly self-serving, utterly subjective, free-pass-for-the-delusional-and-self-righteous, "A Word Means What I Say It Means" exception, of course. Or should I break out the butcher paper and crayons and draw you a picture, just to be clear? --] | ] 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''Actually the point is to build a good encyclopedia'' Noooo, actually the point is stop edit wars -- unless you're claiming that edits wars are ''just'' the way to build a good encyclopedia (and in case you're confused, the answer to that is, "no"). | |||
| ::I think most agree the point of wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. | |||
| :::And water is wet, a lot of tea is consumed in China, and you don't wear white after Labor Day. All of these have as much to do with the actual issue at actual hand as your bit of piety, which is to say, very little. --] | ] 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''Please don't personalize or denigrate this.'' Nope, it's merely noting the obvious conflict of interest and transparently self-serving nature of the proposed changes. --] | ] 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Funny, here's a comment you left utterly alone. --] | ] 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I propose a policy change: that we don't accept policy change requests from people who've recently been blocked under that policy... because they always make proposals that have no hope at all of being accepted :-) ] 08:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Seconded, and I'd like to propose an extension of your proposal; namely, that we don't accept policy changes to NOR from people who've recently been told they can't add their own opinions to articles; and that we don't accept changes to V from people who've recently had edits removed because they can't find a source. :-) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, those are hardly well thought-out responses to the proposals. Does this have anything to do with ]? Think of the time and negative feelings this would save all of us. I'm sure every admin has blocked someone who has remained bitter about it. William, there's at least one lengthy diatribe about you in the past week. In that case a newbie was blocked under the "2RR policy" (yes 2). He's now bitter and disenchanted with the possibilities of wikipedia. How is that a positive, encyclopedia-building thing? Easy to understand policies, equitably applied, would have completely avoided this. ] 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Well, those are hardly well thought-out responses to the proposals.'' Actually, they're as well-thought out as they need to be, penetrating the fog and bafflegab to highlight, as they do, the obviously self-serving nature of your so-called proposal. | |||
| :::Let's get to the point: what you're selling? No one's buying it. --] | ] 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Jfas is now down to advertising his proposal to other blocked users (or is it just users blocked by me?). Lengthy diatribes are two a penny. Your newbie was blocked fo 4R, but sadly refuses to admit it. 3RR policy is easy to understand: ''The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. 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.'' ] 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It is worth noting the following: I am the "newbie" that ] is referring to. Other administrators have already commented that the rationale used by Connolley to block me under 3RR is invalid; as an empirical matter (check the article) I conducted only two reverts. It is true that blocking may occur with fewer than three reverts, but that was not the justification employed. Moreover, other users had violated the 'two revert' "rule" as I did, yet they were not blocked. That sort of selective blocking is inequitable and not in keeping with the intellectual and professional standards of Misplaced Pages. If administrators are unable to conduct themselves in an equitable and thoughtful manner--] has shown that they (at least some of them) cannot--then we need rules that are not up for capricious interpretation. That interpretation leads, and has led to, POV pushing. It suffices for the pushers to find an administrator sympathetic to their position to silence the NPOV folk who wish to prevent an article from becoming a font for POV propaganda.] 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If diatribes from users upset about their 3RR block are two a penny, it seems that 3RR is causing a lot of bitterness int he community. Perhaps some simple changes would prevent this. Just now I took the time to look at a few 3RR cases. 1 of them was a vandal. Another was not a 3RR at all. Others always had at least two edit-warring parties, one of whom remained unblocked. Warnings were often absent. Admins were involved in the middle of wars and "gamed" 3RR to get others blocked. ] 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well since I was asked to comment, I will but I'm not sure you'll like it! In my mind, IV and V are very clearly bad ideas: IV basically creates the opportunity for bad-faith editors to avoid blocks while continuously being disruptive and V opens the door to never-ending debates that are sterile. I think it's actually ok to have a rule that says "even if you ''think'' it's vandalism, don't revert indefinitely but seek consensus or outside opinions". As for the first 3 points, I'm not sure that I) is really a big gain for the editors and it certainly is a nasty overhead for admins and I don't have much to say about II and III since I have not followed closely any contested block on 3RV. ] 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Extra comment: I think a lot of bitterness comes from the fact that too many users make a big deal of blocks. Sure I can't assume that it's fun (although I haven't had that pleasure) but blocks are generally quite short and yet people react as if they'd been shot in the head. Even in cases where the block is excessive it's rarely completely unrelated to a certain recklessness of editors. My best advice to someone who's been blocked unfairly would be to drop it, take a day or a week off from Misplaced Pages and come back, rested and fresh! ] 20:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Diatribes from frustrated POV pushers are indeed two a penny. 3RR is unambiguous and can be diagnosed without difficulty and there is always an alternative: not edit warring. <b>]</b> 23:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The diatribes are evidence that 3RR is ''harmful'' to the community, not that 3RR is "unambiguous". Simple changes could prevent a lot of the ill-will that results... ] 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I agree with you that making life easier for POV pushers and vandals will make them happier. I disagree with you that that is in any way, shape, or form good for the encyclopedia. ] 00:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I also agree that for POV pushers, assorted axe-grinders, wikilawyers, process freaks, and vandals, making them happy is very low on my priority list. --] | ] 01:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::First, Justforasecond's proposal sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. Second, all I see here is a group of editors who won't even consider the actual proposal, but rather jump on Justforasecond on everything they can think of. That, in itself, is ]. The proposal is an okay one, though, I have my grave doubts about the entire 3RR rule, altogether. Third, people disagreeing is one thing, making personal attacks is another. Here is a quote, made here, "''Your utterly self-serving, utterly subjective, '''free-pass-for-the-delusional-and-self-righteous,''' "A Word Means What I Say It Means" exception, of course. Or '''should I break out the butcher paper and crayons and draw you a picture, just to be clear?"''' --Calton | Talk 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)'' This was said and I can't find one negative response to that extra nasty attack. Why has no one addressed this? We have a real clear ] policy here. There are plenty of other attacks and mean accusations aimed at Justfor that were said here, too. | |||
| ::::::As far 3RR goes, I don't think it is a helpful policy. Not only because it only gets used on occasion, but because it gets used specifically sometimes to block other users when they get in the way of a group of editors (who are sometimes biased and sometimes wrong). It's often easy to gather support for an issue, have massive reverts and then block the one editor with a differing opinion on his 4 reverts. Just because a group of editors agrees on one thing does not make it so. Occasionally they are wrong. Anyhow, the rule itself is too easy to game. <span style="padding: 0px; background: white; border: 1px solid; border-color: #0A2060"><font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font> <font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font></span> 04:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Making 3RR a "strict" rule goes totally against the letter and spirit of numerous principles of Misplaced Pages, including (but not limited to) ], ], ]. | |||
| The only obvious effect of such a move would be to turn a unmber (if not all) articles into battlegrounds where people from "opposite sides" would keep reverting one after the other, in complete disregard for the quality of the article, its improvement, and their own mental health ; in Misplaced Pages, people are supposed to all work together toward a better encyclopedia, not split in antagonist camps and revert each other's work. | |||
| And I am quite opposed to the idea in the first place. ] 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :These comments don't entirely make sense. Opposed to which particular idea in "the first place"? You might note that ] is not a wikipedia policy (it's usually a personal attack). ] is already in conflict with ]. What's a user to do if he sees bad material? Follow IAR and revert a fourth time, or follow 3RR and leave it alone...and ya know, we could say that *any* policy violates IAR. As for ] I don't quite see how it applies, but I'd be happy to address your concerns if you spell them out. ] 05:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's ''terrible'' reasoning. "''What's a user to do if he sees bad material?''" You're suggesting edit warring is what a user to do? No, it's cool and collected discussion and pursuing ]. 3RR is not in conflict with IAR. IAR means you should follow common sense when it is in conflict with strict policy: fortunately, edit warring is ''never'' common sense. QED. Your definition of IAR appears to be that all policies must be violated at all times (in order for it to be in violation of them all). That idea is even worse than your definition of dispute resolution. Please drop this proposal; it is clearly without merit. ]·] 07:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The entire point of 3RR is to ''stop edit wars in their tracks''. The reversions themselves are not the evil being addressed; edit warring is. Having broken 3RR is simply the most obvious, incontrovertible evidence of edit warring; it is sufficient, but it is not necessary -- one can edit war without breaking 3RR, and admins are exxpected to use their own judgement to determine what constitutes edit warring. Editors who have made a habit of edit warring do find themselves being observed more carefully and treated more strictly; the more experienced the editors are, the more strictly they should be treated, as edit warring is detrimental to everyone using or editing Misplaced Pages. If you find yourself making what you consider a reasonable change, and someone reverts it, take it to talk. Immediately. Edit comments are no substitute for talk page discussions -- and just because you don't get what you want on a talk page does not give license to edit war. Rather the opposite; once it is clear that consensus is against you, continuing to insert the non-consensus version crosses the line from editing to disruption. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. This can be the case. The one doing the 4rth revert can be the problem. But it still remains true that others can easily game the system with the 3RR by gathering support and '''be themselves the true edit warriors.''' How carefully this is looked into can also be a problem. Another problem, as with other rules, can be revenge or an excuse to block. If there needs to be a 3RR then it needs to be consistent and not horsed around with in ''any way''. Period. Either that or it needs to be gotten rid of altogether. I believe that much of the Misplaced Pages chaos (not all) could be avoided by having rules that are either stuck to -- or not having them at all. <span style="padding: 0px; background: white; border: 1px solid; border-color: #0A2060"><font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font> <font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font></span> 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''The entire point of 3RR is to "stop edit wars in their tracks". The reversions themselves are not the evil being addressed; edit warring is. Having broken 3RR is simply the most obvious, incontrovertible evidence of edit warring; it is sufficient, but it is not necessary -- one can edit war without breaking 3RR, and admins are exxpected to use their own judgement to determine what constitutes edit warring. Editors who have made a habit of edit warring do find themselves being observed more carefully and treated more strictly; the more experienced the editors are, the more strictly they should be treated, as edit warring is detrimental to everyone using or editing Misplaced Pages. If you find yourself making what you consider a reasonable change, and someone reverts it, take it to talk. Immediately. Edit comments are no substitute for talk page discussions -- and just because you don't get what you want on a talk page does not give license to edit war. Rather the opposite; once it is clear that consensus is against you, continuing to insert the non-consensus version crosses the line from editing to disruption.'' | |||
| :Jpgordon, thanks for your feedback. I guess I don't see how this is relevant the proposed changes, e.g. "edit comments are no substitute for talk page discussions" -- the proposals say nothing about edit comments. The proposals are things like requirements that evidence is included in the block log, that warnings be given, etc. (see beginning of thread) ] 05:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I wasn't responding to you, but to Whiskey's post, since he or she seems confused about the purpose of 3RR. I don't feel a need to respond in detail to your proposals, as they've been adequately replied to by others, in particular Calton, Jayjg, and Nandesuka. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I second Whiskey Rebellion's statement posted 04:18, 6 September 2006. Furthermore, there seems to be an unhealthy trend towards clique building and clique supports going on among the admins lately, that's why I support the suggestion to apply measures which will make it harder for admins to block editors arbitrary and which will make admin actions easily traceable. ] 14:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. That's why I say, too, either have this rule '''consistently''' or throw it out altogether. Another thing that seems to happen commonly is admins coming in to a situation, not reviewing much at all, and then blocking on the spot. I've seen some blocking that is fair and square. I've also seen blocking, like with Justforasecond, that is just straight out punitive. Nasty attacks were made on Justfor here. Did the attackers get blocked? Not that I know of, at least. <span style="padding: 0px; background: white; border: 1px solid; border-color: #0A2060"><font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font> <font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font></span> 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The rule ''is'' consistent. Violate 3RR, get blocked for 24 hours. The rule is not exclusive; disruption is grounds for blocking, and can be widely interpreted. With over 1000 administrators, of all sizes, shapes, ages, colors, nationalities, opinions, and predilictions, if a block is inappropriate, it's pretty easy to get another administrator to correct the error or at least speak up for the blocked editor; if an editor has made himself sufficiently unpopular that he can't get one of the 1000 to speak up on his behalf, well, perhaps that editor should consider his own behaviour. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps. Like you said Misplaced Pages has all kinds of admins. It also has all kinds of editors. The wiki is a community made up of both. I've seen quite a few editors defend Justforasecond. He was viscously attacked here. I asked this question before but got no answer. '''Why were the attacks igonored?''' <span style="padding: 0px; background: white; border: 1px solid; border-color: #0A2060"><font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font> <font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font></span> 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::History. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for your comment, Jpgordon, but it's not history that Justforasecond is on a 48 hour block right now for a personal attack that he never made. And still, something should have been done about it then. <span style="padding: 0px; background: white; border: 1px solid; border-color: #0A2060"><font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font> <font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font></span> 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I think you're missing the big picture here, Whiskey Rebellion. Every day, thousands upon thousands of people edit tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of articles at Misplaced Pages. Sometimes there are conflicts, but by and large most editors just go on about their business. When an editor is ''constantly'' involved in conflict, and ''constantly'' engaged in revert warring, they are given less slack than other editors. In other words, when I see a revert war between someone whom I know is ''constantly'' engaged in revert wars versus someone who has a track history of being a quiet, effective editor, I might block both of them, depending on their behavior. But more likely, I'll probably just block the one that I've seen revert warring more often. | |||
| :::::: We have a word for that sort of decisionmaking. That word is "justice." ] 01:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''''"When an editor is ''constantly'' involved in conflict, and ''constantly'' engaged in revert warring, they are given less slack than other editors." "We have a word for that sort of decisionmaking. That word is "justice." (User:Nandesuka)''''' | |||
| I guess that was the reason why you blocked JFS for this edit with an expiry time of '''''1 month''''' for alleged "Continued vandalism of Kwanzaa", but when I made the very same edit a couple of days later, I was neither blocked nor was my edit reverted. Furthermore, at the time of your block, JFS had 3 blocks, one for 3rr @ kwanzaa (see my comment above), one for alleged "disruption" because he was speaking up against an user who not only has an enormous block log but who is also on probation for personal attacks, incivility, racist attacks, and a great number of 3rr violations. (Interestingly enough, Jpgordon not only defended this user vehemently, he also repeatedly threatened JFS because he requested arbitration against this very same user ). That leaves one maybe or maybe not justified block for 3rr @dellums. One block is hardly a basis for your assertion that JFS was a user who was ''constantly'' involved in conflict. It's one thing to disagree with JFS's proposal, it's another thing to personal attack him or to allow personal attacks against him. Justice? I don't see justice, what I see is unfair clique mentality. But since this discussion page is not the right place to address or solve this issue, I think that JFS should request mediation or, if necessary, even arbitration.] 13:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I absolutely encourage Justforasecond to follow Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process if he feels he has been treated unfairly. ] 14:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No offense, Nandesuka, but I don't see this as justice, either. The more I learn about this whole thing, the more ''injust'' it becomes. <span style="padding: 0px; background: white; border: 1px solid; border-color: #0A2060"><font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font> <font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font></span> 19:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I will allow another user the honor of explaining to WR the dynamic and intricate relationship between 'making one's bed' and 'lying in it.' ] (]) 01:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Good, since this is clear now it would be great if we could finally start to discuss the proposal. I cast a support vote for reasons already mentioned in my earlier post. ] 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *What makes you think there is a "vote" happening? This whole section really should get ]ed. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If I would think that a vote is happening, I would have typed "support" in big bold letters at the beginning of my statement as it is custom on wikipedia. "cast a support vote" "I support the proposal" "I agree" ... pick the one you feel most comfortable with. So, now that this is settled as well, do you have any new comments concerning this proposal? ] 06:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Great, we're finally making progress. Everyone, I'd please ask that this not be personalized so we can stick to the proposals. Are there any further objections to proposal I? The only argument I've seen so far is "too much bureacracy". ] 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of COURSE there is, and "too much bureaucracy" is a COMPLETELY valid point, since it's being objected to by the people who would actually being doing it, the admins who enforce the policy you're trying to water down for your own benefit. That being the case, your unilateral declarations of policy procedure are NOT going to be enacted, not matter how much you pretend you've got backing. | |||
| ::And given the transparently self-serving nature of your proposals, "personalizing" it is not only appropriate, it's mandatory. You might as well have entitled it "The Justforasecond Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Act of 2006". | |||
| ::There is no "vote", and there is no movement for change. Don't like it? Stay within the existing rules, then. --] | ] 02:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please be civil Calton. Policies are for the community to decide on and are meant to improve wikipedia. Simple recording diffs in the block log is not a significant burden on anyone. ] 03:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That 'whoosh' you just heard was from the sound of rapidly-moving goalposts. The 'proposal' doesn't call for 'recording diffs in the block log'; it calls for '3RR template: a template for 3RR placed on user talk page, including length of block, all four revert diffs, warning diff, reporting editor, blocking admin, and link to ANI/3RR page.' (Implicit in 'all four revert diffs,' you'll note, is the theory that any editor who reverts fewer than four times is exempt from blocking under any circumstances. As ] makes clear, this is not the case.) See also ] nos. 11 and 15. ] (]) 04:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is it preferable to have no record of why the user was blocked? Go to a block log and/or a users page, you often won't find any link to what the user actually did that precipitated the block. I, for one, believe that if someone is blocked the evidence should be readily accessible. ] 05:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Speaking as someone who has been the recipient of numberous bogus blocks (as well as a few legitimate ones) for alleged 3RR violations, I would absolutely endorse the requirement for a warning and an opportunity for the defendant to undo the offending edit before the block is put in place. I haven't done an exhaustive study of this, but in my case, the majority of my blocks were the result of petulant admins who misrepresented my edits as "reverts" as an apparent attempt to prevent/discourage future edits. In the few cases where my blocks were legitimate, I would gladly have undone the edit in question rather than be blocked. I would also encourage the adoption of a method of punishing admins (including stripping them of admin status) who show a pattern of abusive 3RR blocks. --] 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Admins are admins because they have been deemed worthy to judge what counts as a revert, and what the 3RR essentially means. Insulting others by reinterpreting your edits as merely reverting vandalism (when all it is is just someone else's opinion) does not count. Just as a side note to people reading this, I am NOT engaged in any edit warring with SpinyNorman, but I am involved in an ArbCom case at present which will decide on what penalties to impose (if deemed warranted) on SpinyNorman based on his (recent) past behavior. ] 23:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hmm, so would evidence be a bad thing? In a civilized society, police officers, prosecutors, and judges, are "deemed worthy" to do their jobs but they must still record evidence. Most people think this is a good idea. ] 02:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: A judge hears evidence in a case but it does not mean all evidence will be regarded as evidence, and even if such evidence is found to be evidence, it is not all given equal weight, just as you have reliable and (relatively) unreliable witnesses' testimony. Surely most people know this as well. ] 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Another proposal to eliminate 3RR == | |||
| I think we should consider scrapping the 3RR as an independent entity. It should be subsumed completely by a more general, stronger rule: ]. One piece of the No Edit Wars policy could be a tripwire past three reverts, as the current 3RR structure has it; but it would be much clearer that there is no entitlement to three reverts per day -- rather, three is the most you can get away with before being automatically given a day off, but if you're seen to be edit warring, you're going to get at least a few hours' timeout. As ] points out, an edit war can be (and often is) more nebulous than revert revert revert revert; a broader policy, I think, will be helpful in avoiding the sort of misunderstandings represented in the previous section of this talk page. We don't need court-like proceedings, recordings of evidence, and so on, to stop edit wars in their tracks; it's pretty obvious when one is happening, and after the editor has been advised just once (not once for every occurrence, just once) they should be able to tell when they are doing it. Also, 3RR is specific about time periods; it doesn't deal with other real annoying forms of edit warring. A broader rule will empower the community to reduce edit warring further than 3RR already does. | |||
| If Wikimedia's permissions system was more refined, the best way to enforce No Edit Wars would be to implement per-page or per-namespace bans. Someone breaking No Edit Wars might draw a 24 hour ban from a specific article, but they could still continue discussing the challenged changes on the talk page (which, of course, is what we want them to be doing.) Then, if they just pick another battlefield, the ban might be broadened to the main namespace. | |||
| As with the existing 3RR, the intent of this is not punishment, it is to stop edit wars. Any single block under this policy can be reversed if the editor, in good faith, promises to stop edit warring; of course, a history of No Edit Wars bans or blocks would likely mitigate against the reversal of such a block. | |||
| Thoughts? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In an ideal world with administrators who are unquestionably fairminded I think this would make sense, but administrators are actually human beings. This would move things to an even less objective definition or disallowed behavior "it's pretty obvious when one is happening". Is a single revert a "war"? or is it more of an "edit skirmish"? ] 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Jpgordon, aren't administrators allowed to block people for reasons other than 3RR already? I don't see the extension necessary. However this does not mean scrapping 3RR as an identity - as with normal laws, some always overlap slightly. If anything, the criticism should be directed towards the enforcement of such a policy - but how can a 3RR policy be administered equally (which in some people's minds translates as 'fairly') when there are so many administrators, and so many different (but not completely dissimilar) situations? I don't think that just because something is not implemented perfectly one must add more laws (eg requiring more than one admin to approve something) or subtracting laws (making administrators more 'powerful' by giving them a wider range of situations where they can implement bans). I think the current system is working fairly well, and although I don't necessarily agree with Justforasecond, the general principle of wanting to improve something is not something to be frowned upon. ] 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have never liked 3RR blocking and voted against the original policy. Then, as now, my objections are that it leads to a rather larger amount of sockpuppetry than we would otherwise have to endure, that over time enforcement has become mechanical rather than applied with discernment, and that 3RR is prone to misunderstandings both as people try to game the system and editors involved in lengthy work in an article make inadvertent partial reverts. I believe that the main problem with 3RR today is a lack of discretion in enforcement, a process initiated by ], who though now no longer interested in 3RR matters, was the first to make a habit of blocking any users in violation of it regardless of the merits of the particular situation at hand. A return to the more editor-friendly process of warning people in most cases and using 3RR blocks only when it is abundantly clear that the editor is not making a good-faith effort to contribute constructively would go a long way towards mitigating the problems with 3RR. ] Co., ] 18:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :But that's already the policy, isn't it? An admin can look the other should he so choose. "when it is abundantly clear" is, to use wikilingo, POV. you say you're being constructive, i say its abundantly clear you aren't, who is right? ] 22:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, the more general rule of "No edit warring" already exists... somewhere deep down. The 3 revert rule is more of an electric fence. As with all hard rules, it has been gamed quite a lot :-P ] 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *It has already been established that admins can block for edit warring even if it's not a strict breach of the 3RR. This is useful e.g. to deal with wikilawyering people who revert exactly three times every day. This indeed might be a reason to remove the 3RR - some people seem to think that they have the right to three reverts; I haven't looked into whether that's actual misunderstanding or deliberate misinterpretation. ] 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **] tells us that we should first lead editors who seem to misunderstand the policy to ], which says about the intent of the policy, ''The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique.'' Once warned, if they persist in their deliberate misinterpretation, they'll find themselves less welcome here. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Are cartels allowed?== | |||
| I think the 3RR is a very good rule. However I was surprised to read that "the policy specifically does not apply to groups. Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two (or more) competing versions is acceptable." | |||
| Is this a good idea? It means that a group of editors can form a cartel and use the 3RR rule to effectively keep an individual editor from contributing to the article information the cartel doesn't approve of. In fact shouldn't there be a DDRR rule: "Don't delete relevant and referenced information without first discussing your reasoning in the talk page"? Not all reverts are made equal. ] 08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes it is a good idea, otherwise a single editor can hold community consensus to ransom. ] 08:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand that, but on the other hand a group of editors may agree to simply delete any editor's well referenced contribution that is not according to their own personal POV, and in this way exploit 3RR and reduce an article's neutrality. Facts belong to an encyclopedia. Editors should not simply delete a clearly relevant and well-referenced contribution before at least discussing their reasoning in the talk page. Again, I agree with 3RR but I think this rule would work better if some policy were in place that discourages editors from simply deleting well-referenced information.] 23:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::And they do, regularly. It's definitely a flaw. Often the single editor represents an unpopular point of view, and editors with numbers on their side play tag-team 3rr-evasion. And then they have the audacity to report other editors for 3rr. Two recent examples involving the same tag-team are available at ] and ], where additions with alternative viewpoints are simply reverted, using bad-faith invocations of Misplaced Pages policy as the thinnest pretext. It is system-gaming plain and simple, and it happens everywhere. ] 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's not system-gaming. In fact it's very important. I'm not saying you're doing this, but let's imagine that, say, someone is trying to rewrite ] to indicate that there was no Holocaust. They repeatedly edit to a prefered version of theirs, and everyone else editing the page reverts them. No discussion is possible between the two groups: the lone user is wrong, and the others are right. On the other hand, imagine a situation where some barely notable company has 5 editors trying to keep their company's article POV to promote the company, and only one honest WP editor knows about it. When the honest editor tries to fix the POV they get reverted by the cartel repeatedly. The difference between the two situations is based on who's right... but that first situation is much more important, critical, and common. So, no prohibition on "cartels." In the second situation, the honest editor does have options: they can report the situation at ] or nominate the article for deletion, or simply put up a request in a wikiproject for backup. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah; there are many routes open to single individuals other than reverting if they feel they are facing a 'cartel' with negative aims. --] 10:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR interpretation == | |||
| Correct interpretation of the 3RR has arisen as an issue in a ]. Please see ]. ] | ] 11:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Editor A's contribution to an article was accidentally garbled. Editor B removes it and specifically asks on the talk page that "If anyone knows what it is trying to say, and can edit it to make sense, please go ahead" Editor A puts the contribution back un-garbled. Seems obvious to me that this is ''not'' a revert, but what do other people think? ] 07:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Two questions == | |||
| I've got two questions on the interpretation and enforcement of the 3RR rule. One is on this clause: "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." Does the sockpuppetry need to be proven (via checkuser or a confirmed allegation) for this clause to apply? | |||
| : Yes, or at least made reasonably probable, unless you want to risk getting blocked. You also need to make clear that you're invoking the clause ] 10:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The second question is whether a 3RR violation has occurred if one user has reverted a page multiple times via multiple user accounts or IP addresses. I've been helping fight a persistent vandal who is currently blocked but is reverting a page repeatedly (six times today) via AOL IP's, making blocking him tricky. Thanks for your help. | ] <small>]</small> 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : The policy says that the limit is per-person ] 10:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Question== | |||
| This page says you can't revert the same article more than 3 times in 24 hours, which gave me this question: If you are reverting vandalism and a persistent vandal keeps putting it back, does this rule still count? --] 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : There is an exception for blatant vandalism. Too many people labnel content disputes as vandalism, so be cautious. Blatant vandalism tends to get hit by the RC patrollers anyway ] 10:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Does a first delete count as the first revert? == | |||
| My question involves the method of counting used to determine violations of 3RR. | |||
| '''Background''' | |||
| To keep it simple (yet we're dealing with far reaching principles), let's assume we're talking about one long-present link in the External links of one article. (Two links were involved, but the following could just as well apply to the one less deleted.) | |||
| We have two users -- User:A (myself) and User:Z | |||
| There was discussion on the talk page, so this isn't about an editor acting without any attempt at collaboration or discussion. Only after no one debunked User:A's interpretations of three policies (they only used POV and emotional reasonings, but no reference to any policies), did User:A make a bold delete. User:A doesn't believe that personal POV and emotion trumps policy. If the policies are considered wrong by certain editors, then they should be revised. They should not be ignored or violated when they go against those editors' POV. | |||
| This is not about disallowing ordinary negative sites in the External links. Other sites with negative viewpoints are available and of course allowable, but this website is of the type that is expressly forbidden in ], and especially ]. | |||
| The personal website is a collection of email newsletters written and sent by one man - even spamming it. He has therefore been forced to change web hosts. The website had an article about itself here, but the website was so non-notable, bad, unsourced, vicious, libelous, and violated ] so much, that the article was deleted after an AfD. The link was (unfortunately) left in External links and in articles, even though it should have been deleted from External links, and in some cases in articles. The libelous (major) content of the website is the subject of ongoing libel cases in court. | |||
| '''Now to my question....''' | |||
| * Does a first delete of that link count as the first "revert" for the person who first "deletes" it? Here's the situation: | |||
| User:A, after examination of policies (], and especially ] - where 3RR doesn't apply), interprets them to mean that the particularly libelous link is forbidden by those policies and "deletes" it (not a "revert"). | |||
| User:Z disagrees and reverts, thus initiating an edit war with this history: | |||
| * Z - 1st revert | |||
| : A - 1st revert | |||
| * Z - 2nd revert | |||
| : A - 2nd revert | |||
| * Z - 3rd revert | |||
| : A - 3rd revert (and goes to bed) | |||
| Now Z calls in the troops to carry on the battle (which the pro-] cartel willingly does!), reports A for 4RR, and both get blocked. | |||
| We have an interpretation problem here. Does "delete" mean the same as "revert" (when it's the first delete of long-standing material)? If so, where in the policies is this stated or implied? I'd like to understand this matter better. I did not and would not violate 3RR willfully, and was surprised to find that my first "delete" was apparently counted as my first "revert" (but a revert to ''what''?). | |||
| '''Proposed solution''' | |||
| To eliminate confusion, I suggest that the relevant wording precisely state that a "revert" is of a previous "deletion" made '''very shortly before''' (and name a number of hours, possibly 24 hours), not a "deletion" of long-standing material (over 24 hours). | |||
| Example: | |||
| * A "revert" is defined as the reversion of a previous "deletion" made within the last 24 hours, and does not apply to "deletions" of material older than 24 hours. | |||
| If long-standing material is brought into the equation, we then create a problem with determining what is to be considered the "Previous version reverted to," which is the precise wording used when reporting violations of 3RR. Just how far back in the history would one be allowed to go in that case? Different editors would then choose their favorite "Previous version," some going back 3 hours and others going back 3 years. -- ] 07:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Looking at it, in the "prev version" supplied was (a) malformed (so I doubt anyone checked it) and (b) wrong. OTOH a deletion is almost by definition a (partial) revert, though I see your point about longstanding. I think 24h, or any specific period, would be a bad idea though ] 09:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::back when I was inforceing the 3RR i drew the line at 500 edits. If I can't get it on the same screen with the standard buttons I'm not going to care.] 10:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Not such a bad rule of thumb. Just recently made me waver... eventually I blocked on the grounds that the reverter was active then, and indeed making the "prev version" revert, which is another possible heuristic ] 13:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I am somewhat encouraged by your recognition of a possible interpretation problem. (So I'm not totally crazy! Whew!) But I'm still in doubt as to what to do in the future. It's still not clear to me. The words "delete" and "revert" are not synonymous. While a revert involves a delete, not all deletes are reverts. The first delete is not necessarily a revert, and it's actually nonsense to call it a first revert, if the controversy started afterwards. That's when further deletes are reverts. That distinction needs to be made. A reversion is an attempt to restore the original, "calm" (see below), version. | |||
| :::: I would definitely not have violated the 3RR rule if I had been sure of how to do the counting. I rarely get in these situations anymore, but this time the counting tricked me and I ended up getting blocked for twelve hours. The other editor was also blocked, as he had made 4 clean and clear reverts (not mere deletes), but only three of them were of the same link. (The admin has apologized and then blanked his own page, including the links to his own archives. Weird! Is that allowed?) | |||
| :::: I think the time factor is important. I understand how you might not like to pin it down to precisely 24 hours or such like, but something needs to be done. I liken it to disturbing water. If the water is calm, with no ripples (no edits for awhile as regards the future controversial point), then the first one who touches the (future) controversial point is creating ripples by making a deletion (which is not a revert). The next one who attempts to calm the ripples to the pre-rippled version is making a revert, and everything after that point from both sides are also reverts. It's the degree of existing calm (no controversies at the time) that determine if the first delete is merely a delete or if it is actually a revert. If there is an existing controversy, then talking about a "first revert" is nonsense. Someone has to start the controversy, and that is necessarily a delete, not a revert. Reverts are attempts to restore the original calm version (which isn't necessarily a good thing, since the existing version will often need improvement. We are encourage to be bold....;-) -- ] 20:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''But I'm still in doubt as to what to do in the future.'' - be in no doubt. The official advice is: don't get close to 3RR and you will have no problems. ] is best. But ''if in doubt, leave it for a bit'' is a good idea. The idea that you will win by reverting your opponent into submission doesn't work, although I admit its tempting, and indeed have been tempeted myself in the past... ] 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I fully agree. Collaborative editing is best, with discussion on the talk page, etc.. That's also what I usually do. The issue here has to do with rules. Rules should not be ambiguous, especially when one can get punished for violating them. Whether there has or has not been a violation should not be open to interpretation. Rules that are wishy washy, ambiguous, or not enforced, are problematic. Even worse is when this can result in the punishment of innocents who have misunderstood the situation because of poorly defined rules. My situation has revealed a flaw, and quality control procedures dictate that the flaw needs to be fixed. This situation will get repeated over and over again if not fixed. -- ] 21:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR and popups == | |||
| I have accidently violated the 3RR a couple of times because of ]. I use the revert tool but sometimes I make a mistake and realise that I shouldn't have reverted. Then I revert myself. This means that I have reverted twice. I would then want to go back to Recent changes but click the back button. This reverts a third time and I have violated the rule. I'm just pointing out that some people may use tools and accidentaly violate the rule. --]]] 20:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Self reverts don't count. --] 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks about that, I was getting a bit worried. :-D --]]] 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Exceptions == | |||
| I've been thinking more and more lately that it's a bad idea to explicitly have exceptions for reverting vandalism or removing libelous information. Of course, I think we should always remove vandalism or libelous information... but the existence of those exceptions causes a lot of trouble with certain users who like to think that because other editors aren't getting along with them, their good-faith edits are vandalism. And it seems like these exceptions are mainly theoretical -- how often does someone really need to revert vandalism more than 3 times in one day on the same page? The whole idea of those two exceptions seems to me like telling people ] -- I think those exceptions actually encourage edit warring. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, if there is vandalism or libelous information repeatedly being added the correct solution is to get the user blocked or the page protected, not to revert endlessly. There is no reason to encourage it. —]→] • 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Agreed ] 08:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposed change to Exceptions== | |||
| Based on the brief discussion above, I propose to change the sentence "In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute (e.g. graffiti, link spam), the three-revert rule does not apply." to "Administrators may choose to not count reverts towards the three-revert rule maximum if they feel they are reverts of simple vandalism (e.g. graffiti, link spam) that is clearly not related to a content dispute." And I propose to reword the libelous contributions section similarly. Basically, I wouldn't want to do away with the exception entirely: the best thing would be to word it so it's clear that it's the admin's judgement that counts, not the user making the reverts -- at least then when an admin chooses not to disregard, they can point to the rule and use it to back them up. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Re libel, or vandalism - should there be a bit to say "There is no need to go over 3R to remove libel... if it is libellous, list it at (pagename) so other editors can help" or somesuch ] 07:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This should not emphasize "counting" toward 3 reverts in 24 hours. Regardless of the numbers, if someone is edit warring they should be blocked; conversely, if the several "reverts" are productive partial reverts in collaborative editing, they should not be blocked even though it would technically violate the numbers. —]→] • 00:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, I've made the changes. In order to follow those comments, I changed the text at the top of the exceptions section to give the general idea that for a revert to not be subject to the 3RR rule, it has to be non-contentious. I rewrote with that in mind. In the case of the libel exception, I had to write to trim it back a fair bit: IMO it's going way too far to allow someone to freely violate the 3RR, just because they think they're doing the right thing by ]... and it's not the way this rule is used in practice. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == "General Notice" 3RR Template == | |||
| Another editor and myself have been discussing the possibility of a "lower level" 3RR warning for newer editors, perhaps in the "General Notice" category. Would like to get input on this. If others think it's a good idea, and if so, what format the message should take. The last two revisions of the message we've been reworking are as follows: | |||
| ''Hi! Simply re-instating your changes when they have been reversed (as you are doing in <article>,) can lead you to be blocked from editing (see the ]). The best way is to put your suggested changes into the discussion section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger.'' | |||
| or | |||
| ''Welcome, thanks for your contribution to Misplaced Pages. Please note that repeatedly ] other people's edits (, as you have done in <article>,) can lead to you being blocked from editing (see the ]). Please discuss your changes in the discussion section of the article and gather feedback before proceeding. Thanks.'' | |||
| ] 13:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Either one of those looks good; not much different from ], but a bit of a variation on it. Perhaps you could put it at ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 12:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Confliction with ] == | |||
| This policy states (and I've had several admins tell me this) that only reverting ''simple'' vandalism is safe from 3RR, not ''complex'' vandalism. '''Why'''? What's the point of that? Complex or simple, vandalism is vandalism, and removing it is improving Misplaced Pages, enforceing policy, and being a good person. Why should somone be blocked just because the blocking admin doesn't want to take the time to find out if it was vandalism or not? That's not fair at all, if you ask me. And another thing; doesn't ] protect people reverting ''any'' kind of vandalism from being blocked? I mean, after all, it ''is'' policy (according to Jimbo). Blocking people for reverting complex vandalism is like blocking somone for enforcing ], ], ], ], and ].--]] ] 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There's no such thing as "complex vandalism." The only kind of edits that are really vandalism are ones that could be described as simple vandalism. If the situation is complex, the term "vandalism" doesn't apply, since that refers to edits (from ]) "made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." If the situation is complicated, referring to edits as vandalism are likely to be violations of ].. and if not, it's abuse too complicated to be referred to as simply "vandalism". But more to the point, fixing vandalism is, frankly, much less important than not getting into edit wars. There are other solutions to repeated vandalism than reverting it repeatedly yourself: that's what ] is there for, and ] in extreme circumstances. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Knowingly inserting masses of POV or OR into an article is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.", but you say it isn't vandalism? The point still stands, people shouldn't be blocked for removing obvious violations of Misplaced Pages policies per ], yet ] states they should. IAR clearly states to ignore the rules if they keep you from maintaining the quality of Misplaced Pages (a.k.a revrting edits against policy).--]] ] 00:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Usually people adding that think they are correct and improving Misplaced Pages by presenting the "truth". Regardless, the issue with regard to this policy is that with such changes it is not instantly clear which is the POV OR and which not; an exception to edit warring for these cases would be an exception for content disputes in general, effectively nullifying the policy. Overall, any sort of situations where someone would be engaging in repeated reverting instead warrants seeking a permanent solution such as protecting the article. —]→] • 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think it would be too hard to find out who's adding the POV or OR. It just seems to me like, and I'm not trying to insult anyone here, you're saying people can be blocked for following ] because the blocking admin is too lazy to read through the edits/page history. And what about cases where the POV adding is completley obvious? This policy needs to be worded differently or changed alot.--]] ] 03:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No way. ] is "ignore all rules." If you feel that ignoring the 3RR would be good for Misplaced Pages, go ahead, but if an admin comes along and ''doesn't'' feel that ignoring your 3RR violation would be good for Misplaced Pages you'll be blocked for it, and you've only got yourself to blame: acting in good faith doesn't excuse all bad behavior. You are clearly looking for license to revert certain edits repeatedly, which is completely contrary to the spirit of this policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If someone is pushing POV in an obvious way, they can be blocked for disruption. But someone revert warring with someone like that is also being disruptive, and can and ''should'' be blocked under the 3RR. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::#] is ''policy''. If my revert warring was improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages (ex, removing POV or OR) and an admin just decided to block me because he doesn't liek IAR, he should be de-sysopped. | |||
| ::::::#Why? For following ], ], and keeping Misplaced Pages rid of nonsense? Wow, I never realised admins were so anti-Wiki...--]] ] 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've explained to you how to deal with those who make problematic edits. Repeatedly reverting is an '''extremely''' bad solution to that kind of problem: it invariably leads to an escalation, further bad feelinds, and often to long-lasting edit wars and lots and lots of administrator involvement. In short, it's one of the most disruptive things you can do, and you absolutely SHOULD be blocked for that kind of thing. And your ideas about ] are just wrong: you might want to review ], specifically, "Misplaced Pages is not Anarchy." ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::So if IAR ''doesn't'' mean that you should ignore the rules if they restrict you from improving or maintainging the quaility of Misplaced Pages, what ''does'' it mean? And what the hell does Anarchy have to do with me not wanting good contributors that are following policy to be blocked? The Anarchy section of ] states that Misplaced Pages has rules to restrict your actions, which is true; but IAR states that said rules ''can'' be ignored without punishment ''if'' the ignorance helps Misplaced Pages. Blocking somone for reverting complex vandalism is like slapping a essay tag on IAR, and I'm pretty sure you'd get reverted if you did that.--]] ] 04:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Simply, revert warring does not improve the encyclopedia. It clutters up the page history and it gets people angry and it interferes with normal editing, but it is not going to cause whatever preferred revision to be implemented even assuming that preferred revision is undoubtedly superior. —]→] • 04:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], in its entirety, says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them." It says absolutely nothing about that your ignoring of rules should be accepted without question. You have to think big picture here, too. I agree, removing a POV edit would improve that Misplaced Pages article. But reverting it over 3 times in 24 hours will likely have little effect because in a revert war, your revert won't "stick," so it won't have much effect on the article. Worse, it further antagonizes the POV pusher: as a result of your revert, they will continue to act and feel like a Misplaced Pages outsider, which means ignoring our policies as much as possible. ''Discussion'', or if that fails, using one of the other procedures in ] or reporting the situation at ] and getting administrators to intervene may actually solve the issue. So, in this case, there's a very bad case for ignoring the 3RR -- it only "helps Misplaced Pages" if you look at the situation with tunnel vision. | |||
| ::::Let me try to explain what I think ] means, which is tricky. Basically, I see IAR as the equivalent of ] with respect to policies and rules: it describes the way that Misplaced Pages policy is expected to develop. We are not here to build the perfect policies, so if the rules are wrong in a certain situation, IAR encourages you to simply ignore the rule and to things properly rather than trying to get the rule changed first (which would be much too cumbersome). If that situation turns out to be a blind spot in the rules, though, ultimately, it's expected that the policy will evolve so that people don't have to continue ignoring rules constantly. See ] for more. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"''It says absolutely nothing about that your ignoring of rules should be accepted without question.''" | |||
| :::::All I meant when I said that was that IAR is policy, and following policy is basically the number one thing all Wikipedians are supossed to do.--]] ] 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sure... but I hope you see the irony in this. I mean, it's a "rule" that tells you to ignore rules. But seriously, ] cannot be entrenched to the kind of level where it supercedes other rules, or else we reall would have ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleting a section which more than one editor has contributed to == | |||
| I have seen several examples recently where an editor has simply deleted a section (which expressed criticism of someone (s)he admired) rather than improving it or giving any indication of how it might be improved to meet his/her objections. It seems pretty clear that deleting a section counts as a revert. I think it is arguable that deleting a section which (a) two or more editors have contributed to and (b) has been a part of an article for more than 48 hours should be considered vandalism and that reverting such a deletion should not count as a revert. This would encourage people to make constructive contributions rather than to delete things they didn't like. What do people think? ] 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think an unexplained deletion of a section is vandalism. I think a repeated unexplained deletion of a section should be met with a block. But I also think that repeatedly reverting that vandalism isn't the best answer. If you're having this kind of problem, report the user at ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ok, but what about a more complex case. What about repeated ''explained'' (but bogus reason) deletion of a section? We have tag teams of editors that ] some articles and make sure it is thier POV that is presented. // ] | |||
| ::: If its more complex, then 3RR exemptions don't apply. It should go off towards ] ] 14:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Good point. If the other editor keeps igoring you I guess you could just escalate up the ] ladder. // ] | |||
| == Serial reverters == | |||
| I have come across cases recently where, for some Editors, (a) their "contributions" to a article consist principally of reverts; and (b) if you look at their "contributions" overall they are largely reverts across many articles. For example one editor made 17 reverts in his last 25 contributions. Obviously some pruning of articles is necessary, but this strikes me as the wrong balance. I wonder how/whether we can extend the 3RR to deal with this? ] 11:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As the editor just contacted by ] regarding my "serial reverting", I would just like to point out that almost all of my reverts are vandalism related. I did revert one of ]'s edits earlier today (over at ]), but noted why in my edit summary (inappropriate placing of material) and copied his material to the article's talk page (where I also commented on it). Anyway, just for the record ... --] 12:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I specifically don't want to personalise this. Obviously dealing with clear cases of vandalism don't count as reverts for this purpose. But suppose a <b>hypotheical</b> editor were to make large numbers of non-valdalism-related reverts and contribute little or nothing? ] 14:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, please. A "hypothetical editor", just after you'd personalised it by pointing out and enumerating my reverts on my talk page? Suggesting that editors consume time speculating on such hypotheticals is not a good use of time. Yours or ours. --] 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :NBeale, what you don't say is that in certain articles we have a single editor being consistently reverted by no less than seven other editors. That single editor happens to be you. Consistent adding of non-encyclopedic material will result in consistent reversion. We do have guidelines for discussion questionable material on the talk page before adding to the project page. ] 12:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do a lot of reverting, as well, but it's always vandalism, or things that I can't tell if they are correct. Also, I never break the three-revert rule. If it gets to that point, I usually concede (unless it's vandalism, in which case I let the vandal break the rule first.) --] 12:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::A user who perpetually violates the 3RR can be blocked for longer and longer periods. But I see absolutely nothing wrong with a "serial reverter" -- that's what a LOT of editors do; they keep tabs on certain articles that are prone to questionable edits and revert those edits when there's nothing to discuss about them. ]]<sup>]</sup> 12:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The worst policy on Misplaced Pages, official. == | |||
| The three revert rule is rubbish. | |||
| It needs to die, and fast, before it damages Misplaced Pages any more. I propose a much better system to deal with excessive reverting and/or edit wars: | |||
| # Any editor finding an edit war or excessive reverting goes to a noticeboard and adds a link to the article(s) and editor(s) involved. | |||
| # The enforcing admin leaves a notice on the talk page of an editor they think is excessively reverting or edit warring, telling them to stop editing the page and discuss. | |||
| # If the editor goes to the talk page, then normal dispute resolution procedure is followed. | |||
| # If the editor continues warring, they are blocked. | |||
| This gets round the fact that the "three revert rule" is entirely wrongly named (it's not a rule, it's not triggered either by three reverts or by more than three, it classes many things that are reverting as not included, and it includes many things that are not reverting). ]. “] ] ]”. 12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :So, you mean a policy such as ]. --] 23:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No such '''policy'''; that's a guideline. Make it policy and scrap the 3RR and I'll be ecstatic. ]. “] ] ]”. 23:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because there is such a big difference between guidelines and policies. :) DE does exactly what you suggest, just with less steps once the disruptive editor is submitted to ]. --] 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unfortunately there is a big difference between guidelines and policies. I think ] would swiftly be overwhelmed if it had to absorb routine cases of disruptive editing, which is why I suggested a separate noticeboard (rather as ] is now separate). ]. “] ] ]”. 00:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hey, this isn't a bad policy! The Wiklpedia 3RR is important on many reasons! Most important, it solve about 80% of edit-wars (two that won't agree on a piece of information). Other than that, constant vandalism of reverting to a page of a ridiculous time or to a vandalized version of the page can be also solved using this rule. Although I do agree some slack should apply to it (reverting obvious inaccurate information), this is not a bad rule. Don't hate! ] 03:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Fys -- that's exactly why the 3RR is a ''good'' policy -- yes, edit wars are harmful, and tendentious editing, crankery, trolling, et cetera, are major problems... but it's very hard to judge them, because often both sides have points, both sides may have an agenda... and in the worst of those cases, we end up with an arbitration case. Things don't ''have'' to get that far in all cases, and the way that kind of thing can be avoided is if people are forced to discuss what they want rather than simply ignore each other. The 3RR puts one simple barrier in the way of editors blindly ignoring each other, and probably heads off a lot of nasty situations. I don't think anyone is arguing that edit warring generally shouldn't be viewed as disruptive, but things get fuzzy quickly. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No, it isn't a "simple barrier". If that were the case, then people going over it would always get blocked, and those not going over it would not. Instead the punishment for not breaking the 3RR can be worse than that for breaking it. A block for a 3RR 'violation' or for a non-violation follows many hours after the edits which have brought it about. And the 3RR is being used to try to break all cases of edit warring, not just those involving excessive reverting: it wasn't designed for that, and it doesn't work. Get rid of it. Something much simpler would work much better. ]. “] ] ]”. 11:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Fys, it is the best solution in an imperfect universe. Are you aware of how things looked ''before'' it was introduced? Do you think the inertia of wikiconsensus would have implemented anything like this as ''policy'' unless it was badly needed? There is no way to go back to pre-3RR times. If you have a suggestion of how to ''improve'' it, you are welcome to voice it, but if you think the 3RR is 'rubbish' I seriously doubt you have understood much about it, or the nature of edit wars. In obvious cases of disruption, we don't even need to invoke 3RR. Show me disruptive behaviour on any article I am not involved with, and I will block the offender without much ado (in borderline cases posting to AN/I for review). 3RR is a definition of behaviour well within 'disruptive' that can be identified algorithmically as it were. 'disruptive' behaviour (such as gaming-the-system) can be much more varied of course, but needs human common sense to be recognized and thus cannot be cast into a rigid if-then policy. You also seem to have misconceptions about what "Misplaced Pages isn't": being "just" or "equal-handed" in our blocks is no priority, per ] (and -bureaucracy). The focus of blocks is to keep the editing process on track and palatable to hard-working, policy-abiding editors. If some disruptors occasionally get treated more rougly than other disroptors, that is of no consequence and doesn't need to be fixed at all. ] <small>]</small> 11:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seconded. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::that said, if you have been blocked prematurely by some newbie admin (as seems to be the case), your course of action is not to rant against the 3RR itself, but about trigger-happy, power-crazed IRCite admins. I don't know if you have a case there, but even if you do, this has nothing to do with the 3RR as such. I am not watching AN/I 24/24, but if I do spot a complaint about an abusive block, and agree with it, I will be sure to unblock. But users wont to cry "wolf", who people, wasting ten minutes to investigate their case, find were being disruptive after all, will have a slimmer chance of getting their blocks reviewed. If your block was completely unjust or mistaken, I am sure it will be reverted by almost any admin. But again this has nothing to do with the 3RR, just with unjustified blocks that may (rarely) be meted out invoking it. ] <small>]</small> 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm interested, is there actually a rule which says imbalanced blocking is not a concern? I'd think it's one thing to say the main purpose is to protect WP, and I'd agree, but shouldn't an important part of that be treating people fairly? Perhaps our definitions of fairness differ, but I'd think if two people are doing the same thing under the same circumstances, we'd want to make at least some effort to treat them the same. ] 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyright == | |||
| Proposed addition below ]: ''Copyright violations expose the Wikimedia Foundation to possible legal action and should be removed on sight''. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Approve. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Approve. This is really a no brainer--surely the possibility of legal liability trumps 3RR. I'm going to add it to the article, seeing no opposition here. · '''<font color="#709070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' · 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR warning== | |||
| Why doesn't the policy: | |||
| * mention the 3RR template (]) | |||
| * and/or provide suggested wording for a warning | |||
| * or mention that many administrators won't block a user for a 3RR violation without a warning being posted on the user's talk page? | |||
| I understand that a warning is NOT mandatory, and some users even feel that it is counterproductive, but some users (like me) come to this page at least expecting to find a link to the template (and appreciating sample wording), and find - zip? -- ] | ] 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==add exception for reverting bots== | |||
| I think an explicit exception should be added for cases where you're reverting bots adding interwiki links, as they frequently add inappropriate links over and over again. Theoretically, if you can chase down the corresponding articles in every single foreign language wiki and make everything consistent, you should be able to stop the bots, but in practice this is almost impossible. Arguably this case is already covered by the exception about "reverting without edit warring" (an edit war with a bot is pretty much a nonsense concept) but I think it should be made explicit. | |||
| (For the example that brought this up, see ].) --] 02:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Whoops, actually see ]. The bots have been adding links to ] from foreign-language articles titled "vitamin A" or cognates; I think these should go to ] and not to ]. --] 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == What about removing speedy tags? == | |||
| So, I couldn't find anything about this, so I thought I'd ask: If a user constantly removes speedy deletion tag from an article he or she has created (which is against policy, I believe), does reverting these removals count toward the 3RR? Until recently, the drmspeedy2 template , in which case it would necessarily be acceptable to revert more than three times. But this doesn't seem to be shown anymore. ] 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There is not much point to reverting in this case. An editor who does this is not likely to get blocked, but the more efficient solution is to contact an administrator directly or report on the administrator's noticeboard (or perhaps even convincing the person removing the tag to stop). Continually reverting is just a waste of time. —]→] • 06:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Could someone give me a quick bit of advice? == | |||
| I have just realised that my reverts on ] could well constitute a violation of this rule. Could someone take a look and see? My removals are all to remove original research, speculation and opinion.-]<sup>]</sup> 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, its 4R, and not agains blatant vandalism. Thanks for pointing this out, I shall block you now, hahhahaaa... but more seriously: you might want to self-revert ] 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think I need to self revert - I will just not do any more reverting, and I will post a request for people to not post such material on the talk page (a block wouldn't be necessary, simply because I have realised my mistake and they aren't punitive but preventative). | |||
| ::This rule is more complex than it looks. It might also be slightly restrictive in its effects - ie. removing blatant policy violating material from an article is not detrimental to the article - regardless of whether it is a revert or not. It kind of puts a straight jacket on editors, preventing them from maintaining quality levels on the site. Articles such as this one and other TV show episodes suffer from serious ] and unreferenced edit problems but this stops people from being able to fix them.-]<sup>]</sup> 21:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::While the 3RR rule may result in some lowering of quality - for example, you're going to have to be less zealous in guarding that article - it's absolutely critical to limiting ]s, as the policy states. (There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of changing this rule - say, by increasing the number of reverts allowed - precisely because it is so important.) Also, you're incorrect about the punitive versus preventive distinction - a 3RR block is automatically considered preventive, as in "don't do this again". That you recognize what you've done and state that you don't plan to do it again is irrelevant. (On the other hand, since your most recent revert is about 24 hours ago and you're not in a fight with anyone over the article, it seems unlike that you'll be reported, and - as the policy says - old violations are ignored, so you're certainly safe if no one reports you within the next 24 hours or so.) ] | ] 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::John, you are incorrect about the punitive vs preventative block. Using the idea that a block is 'don't do this again' is wrong. A block is supposed to stop the edit war and give the user time to cool down and reflect upon their actions - with the intention of making them realise that revert warring is wrong and damaging to the site. The second line of ] states ''Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages. They should not be used as a punitive measure.'' - Stating that 3RR blocks are automatically considered as preventitive is nonsense really. If I were blocked now for an action that happened 24 hours ago and I have stopped and posted comments to say so, it would be a very poor decision and be completely punitive and not preventitive (what would it be preventing?). | |||
| ::::Also, the idea of changing the rule wouldn't simply be to change the number of reverts - it would have to be much more fundamental than that, in my opinion. However, I am not about to propose such as change as I am not in the right frame of mind at the moment.-]<sup>]</sup> 19:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The idea is that a block would discourage the user from doing it in the future. If a user clearly recognizes the error in good-faith, there would be no need for the block, but many of the violators of 3RR are chronic edit warriors. —]→] • 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That still gives rise to the idea that the block is punitive, blocking them to discourage them from disruptive editing is a punishment (much like taking a child's TV away for watching something they shouldn't have). Blocking them to tell them not to do it again is not the point of blocks. This is outlined very clearly in our ] as I stated above. The only reason I see that blocks should be imposed is in cases to prevent ongoing disruption and to give the user time to reflect on their actions. | |||
| ::::::Just so people don't misunderstand me though - I do support this rule! It prevents an awful lot of messing around and disruption on the site. However, I think everyone should be able to understand that my concern is that it may also be causing problems with good edits too.-]<sup>]</sup> 22:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Punishment is retribution for past acts. Punishment would be blocking for 3RR regardless of whether it is clear that the person will not do it again, having been warned. Deterrence is evaluating future likelihood, and that is preventive. —]→] • 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Ah, ok. So that means that John's comment that I could be blocked is incorrect then. Ok. My comments about improving the policy still stand though. I will have a think about how this might be achievable (I understand how complex and difficult creating a foolproof rule can be - just look at the government in the UK, even they can't create laws which work completely as intended).-]<sup>]</sup> 01:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==HELP PLEASE, first encounter with 3R rule, school vandals amok== | |||
| Please advise how to avoid escalating this but still solve it. The page ] has a humourous, but completely spurious, non-encyclopaedic, joke section of current students. I removed it, added comment as to why, and explained further on the discussion page. Someone had put a lot of effort into it, so I tried to be kind, but it is just a joke, not an article. I also added template warnings to the relevant user pages, and a request for protection for the page as a whole. | |||
| Now ] has replaced the text twice. I've added to comment to their talk page asking them to either stop, or explain their thinking. We are on the edge of an edit war, and also about to go into violation of the 3R rule. | |||
| I think I've been patient and tried to be nice about this. Now I'm just pissed off. Any suggestions please? thanks in advance. ] 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't worry about 3RR, it doesn't apply to obvious vandalism. I've reverted and made it clear that this is a path they don't want to go down. ] 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think that this is a case where we have to try and "solve" things. Unfortunately, I think they know very well what they're doing. ] 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == edit warring ... not against the rules? == | |||
| Okay, I know edit warring is bad, and I know that edit warring gets people blocked. But unless I'm just having a bad seeing day, I can't actually find a ''policy'' which ''explicitly'' states that edit warring in and of itself, independent of 3RR violations, is against the rules. The best I can find is this: | |||
| :''Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.'' | |||
| on this page. ] is a guideline and ] is an essay. So what is the ''official'' status of edit warring? - ] 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * It's disruptive. Do we need to legislate Clue? ] is the disruptive editing guideline, though, ] is an essay. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right, that's what I meant. - ] 05:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Lead == | |||
| Any reverts beyond this should be performed by other users? ], anyone? The intent is: stop edit warring. Period. Tag-teaming is not within the spirit of that, surely? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree whole-heartedly. - ] 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, ] totally applies there. Let's not encourage reverters to seek meatpuppets. ]]<sup>]</sup> 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR Considered Harmful == | |||
| While we all agree that edit warring is a Bad Thing, it appears that making a strict numerical definition for it does not actually help in stopping edit wars, and has several undesirable side effects. In particular, despite the wording on this page, people tend to think that three reverts is an entitlement, or that they should simply ask one of their friends for the fourth. People often game the system by claiming a block before the third revert-per-day is out of order, and even some admins agree with that view and undo the block or censure the blocker. The more basic problem is that the 3RR is not constructive in that it tends to point admins towards blocking people, rather than protecting the page and starting up a discussion. Finally, people spend quite some time in filing the overly-complex reports on ] (which tend to be filed by the other party in the revert war) and expect swift and semi-punitive responses to the reports. It may be time to deprecate the 3RR in favor of a more general and less legalistic rule about edit warring. Comments please? ] 14:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Disagree. Revert warring does more damage to the encyclopedia than almost anything else - with the obvious exception of wheel warring - and blocks for 3RR could and should be directly enforceable. If anything a stricter wording is needed to make it clear that activities like meatpuppeting on 3RR are also unacceptable and should be IMO block-worthy offenses. ] <sup> ]</sup> 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. I tend to believe that the 3RR system is most effective and keeps edit wars a lot less troublesome. :: <em>]</em> <font color="red">'''(])'''</font> 19:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I also feel that 3RR performs its function well. If we adopt a non-legalistic approach to edit warring, there will be endless complaints and bad blood that Mr. Connolley or some other blocking admin chose to block a friend of his opponents for two reverts and decided to skip a friend of his with four reverts. The current system pivots on equality and functions well enough for me. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 15:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I've outlined some of my thoughts at ], but that was meant to deal with content arbitration, not the three-revert rule. Whether deliberately or by accident, the 3RR establishes a legal limit for revert-warring. While we all "know" that the argument that any user is "entitled" to three reverts a day is very much against the spirit of the rule, that remains the inevitable result of establishing an actual barrier after which you can be blocked. Any user can reasonably argue that the 3RR means that any block ''before'' the third or fourth revert is illegitimate, and they may well be right. There's also substantial disagreement over whether the fourth revert means you should be blocked, or whether you need to be warned after the third, or whether complex reverts are reverts at all or attempts at compromise. These questions are ultimately impossible to resolve, and this is, in my view, an unfruitful topic in the first place. | |||
| *The three-revert rule does not favour "good" content over "bad" content save in cases of outright vandalism. I've covered this point in the linked passage above so I'll just recap briefly. ] aside, the 3RR can get an editor blocked for justifiably reverting POV-pushing or otherwise disruptive edits. Given the current stigma associated with a dirty block log, this can significantly harm a good user whose only crime was trying to better the encyclopaedia and who doubtlessly thought their actions were entirely appropriate. If there's an edit war breaking out the solution isn't to block the users responsible, that simply puts the problem in abeyance. If the article is suffering from disruption then protect the article and make them work it out on the talk page. Such discussions usually reveal who has a leg to stand on. | |||
| *Finally, from a historical standpoint, the 3RR was meant to stop really obnoxious edit-warring. I think that it's clear from all the 3RR blocks handed out that it hasn't done that, and a cottage industry devoted to 3RR enforcement has sprung up instead, with all the associated problems that I've outlined above. I'd rather see content arbitration, or stronger community enforcement, perhaps via the Administrators' Noticeboard, a mechanism which did ''not'' exist when the 3RR underwent its change in status. | |||
| *In brief, that's my problem with the 3RR. I'll be trying to come up with something more coherent at a later date. ] ] 15:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I am thrilled by the idea of content arbitration. If it only could be practicable, it would put an end to the reign of POV-pushers in Misplaced Pages. Currently, you need extraordinary amounts of energy and time no neutralize each of them and many good people just go away. The winner is usually the one who has more perseverence in pushing his point of view. ] is a monument to ineffectiveness of discussions between the same sets of editors: their disputes may drag for years without any result. Eventually the parties start to accuse each other of incivility or personal attacks and take it to ArbCom, which ironically does not do content analysis. Even now, the only receipt to settle a content dispute is to ask other respected people to look into the matter. Why not make it official? --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Ghirla - in order for our revert rules to work, there needs to be some specific number of reverts that trigger it, and three seems to be the right number. If we give people discretion or flexibility, we'll get lengthier revert wars ''plus'' accusations of unfairness against every admin who enforces the rules. <tt style="color:#161;">''Gavia immer''<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 15:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The present state of 3RR is not good, no. However, Ghirla has a good point there. There will be accusation of conspiracies and punitive blocking. I simply don't see how this is going to help our cause while being so subjective. We need to define 3RR in clear terms and leave less for admin-discretion. If you can come up with some other structure that relies on stated terms, we would find that more helpful. Thanks. — ] 15:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree that the 3RR causes strife -- the real problem is edit warring. The problem is, edit warring is never a black-and-white situation. If we didn't have the 3RR, how would we define edit warring? And what kind of edit warring is problematic behavior, versus proper behavior that comes up when editors legitimately disagree? To me, the only kind of behavior we can clearly define as problematic is faulty engagement in the conflict -- refusing to attempt to communicate about the issue. (Even failure to compromise isn't always bad behavior -- in some situations it may be wrong to because policy unambiguously supports one side.) The 3RR sets up rules of engagement that are designed to prevent the worst kind of situation - a high-speed revert war where both sides don't care about the others' points. It's black-and-white, and forces the parties to try to communicate after a certain point. We could maybe clarify the point about "gaming the system" -- the 3RR is there to force the disagreeing parties to communicate over the issue, and this is what is really important, and refusing to communicate is unacceptable whether or not the 3RR is violated. The real disaster would be if we abandoned the 3RR and tried to get involved directly in content disputes: what's so great about the 3RR is that it simply solves countless debates without outside help, just by making the parties communicate. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I guess the most on-point answer comes straight from the policy page itself: three reverts is '''not an entitlement, but an "electric fence".''' By the time someone trips the 3RR limit, there's obviously a serious conflict going on that needs to be forcibly cooled. It is possible for parties in conflict to seek outside input before getting to the point of 3RR (one POV-pusher is powerless in the face of two or three reasonable voices); it is also possible for admins to step in (the admittedly messy waters) where 3RR has not yet been breached but where bad behaviour is taking place. The 3RR is a worst-case scenario; it's the circuit breaker that trips when everything else has failed. ](]) 15:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*Alas, the converse is also true: one reasonable voice is powerless in the face of two or three POV-pushers. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, that sort of thing. <small>– ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> ''19:27, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).''</small> | |||
| *I stated my own idea about this ]. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *After scanning through the comments above, I thought I'd toss in an analogy which was used in an earlier discussion up the page. 3RR is like a speed limit in many ways - it is a hard numerical limit on an activity as a recommendation to help avoid accidents under 'safe editing conditions' (speed limits are designed against 'optimal driving conditions' to ensure safety). As we all know, speed limits are selectively enforced, gamed, used by enforcers for non-safety ends, and used as excuses. What I'm getting at is that enforcement of 3RR is prone to exactly the same human behavioral traits that lead to our frustration as drivers over selective enforcement of speed limits; that does not make 3RR or speed limits bad rules to follow and I support continued use of 3RR in this fashion - as a speed limit - understanding that there are conditions under which it is appropriate to break 3RR - if your wife is having her baby in the back seat, speeding to the hospital might be an understandable albeit risky offense; better to wait for the police escort. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 16:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *3RR, in its current form, serves a useful role as a barbed wire fence. It exists, it provides a barrier against trespass, and you're already in trouble even if you just rub up against it. It should remain as is, a trigger for action instead of an entitlement. Your concerns are well stated, Radiant, but I feel 3RR should remain and effort should be invested by every editor and admin to advocate the spirit of 3RR proactively so that the letter of 3RR need never be executed. - ]</small> (]) 17:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *You've got to draw the line somewhere, and 3 is a reasonable number for reversions for each individual; anything beyond that it and the rv'ing becomes disruptive, not constructive. ] 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Well, 2 is perhaps reasonable, 3 is benefit of the doubt, and 4 is "stop it, now." --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with Ghirla, if we replace objective with subjective rule situation could soon get pretty ugly. ] 19:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If 4RR was intended to stop obnoxious edit warring, it really hasn't succeeded. I guess it stops 50+ edits a day edit warring, but the war just drags out for a lot longer. ] is going at a rate of about 2-3 reverts for the past three days now. ] 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Nothing can really be perfect, but I can see a real benefit of the 3RR electric fence just by looking at the state of the German wikipedia. enwiki is rather peaceful in comparison and as a whole blocks ''appear'' a lot fairer here. This might be a subjective view due to the articles I am watching there and the admins I had interaction with or who are reacting on the articles I watch. Basically I feel on enwiki I can have a content disagreement with an admin and don't have to worry about being blocked for it. Nevertheless 3RR is not a free ticket for editwarring or other disruption, but these get often ignored until 3RR is triggered, as not many feel the need to make that judgement earlier when the persistant cases get caught in the fence eventually anyway. ] 00:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)<p> | |||
| The 3RR rule needs no exceptions for anyone who thinks more reverts are appropriate. If something is serious enough that a person would have just cause to see that a fourth reversion happen in the same day, that person can ask for help. Instead of reverting for a fourth time, the contributor can ask for outside input. Someone else can revert if the situation warrants it. If the contributor who wants a 4th revert has no idea how to get help, then that contributor doesn't know enough about Misplaced Pages to make such a call anyway. ] 09:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *To say that the 3RR rule isn't working because violations continue, is comparable to saying that speed limits don't work because cops continue to give out speeding tickets. We have no way of knowing what would happen if the 3RR rule were dropped, but I'm pretty confident that there would be more edit wars, not fewer, if nothing else (like mandatory content arbitration) were available. ] | ] 16:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: But speed limits *don't* work. I never drove as safely as I did on the german ], simply because I could keep my eyes on the road, and only had to worry about other traffic. :-) Like speed limits in real life, you're only really fighting the symptom (badly designed roads/lack of good faith <small>''(])''</small>), rather than the actual problem :-). Granted, if that's all you can do, it's better than nothing, but still. ] 00:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Radiant has a point in reports. They are extremely complex. I think I have filled one or two only in my active year here. The report should be easier to fulfill. But I am not waiting for the third revert to block. I usually wait for a fourth or fifth, just to be sure the user received the warnings (in fact, I think I have yet to block someone due 3RR). Articles like ], ], ], ] and many others are subject to edit wars very often, and if I hadn't reported them, it is because the reports were too hard to fill. As a final comment, the rule could be 5RR or 10RR, but the larger the number, the more damaging for the article. -- ] 01:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree with most(?) people that gave their opinion - the 3RR is helpful, and useful - and it keeps people from warring. Those that feel the need to revert a 4th time are those that don't have the personability to discuss changes on the talk page first - or the support to win a short revert war of very few reverts. Without the 3RR, wars could go on between two people until an admin protects the page - but with the 3RR, large wars can only happen if users organize against eachother - something that doesn't usually happen, and if it does, it stops quickly and discussion starts. ] 09:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The problem with subjective standards is that they are invariably applied unequally. There is 'wiggle room' even in the current 3RR system such that I've seen exactly parallel situations evaluated differently. I'm not a fan of blocks in general except for incorrigible cases. That can certainly be the case with edit warring and 3RR is a reasonably fair way to detect and act to stop that, but it commonly gets used ''instead'' of trying to resolve the dispute. If it were to be changed I'd suggest that we make the issue 'edit warring in general' and apply a 'laundry list' of blockable examples; more than three reverts in 24 hours, ten reverts of the same text regardless of time between them, ''any revert'' without discussion after being warned to stop edit warring by an uninvolved admin, et cetera. If the ''problem'' is that people 'game the system' then I would suggest updating the system to make such 'gaming' strategies every bit as blockable. There should be no question that making exactly three reverts two days in a row is every bit as blockable as making four in one day. --] 13:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I think what would help is (1) encouraging page protection rather than blocking, for it often takes two to edit war and it's frequently an involved party filing a report against his opponents; and (2) making ] less bureaucratic. ] 13:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Page protection sometimes makes it more difficult to work out compromise wording (discussing such rather than just editing in turn to get something all can accept), but in most edit wars there isn't even an attempt at such compromise and I agree that protection would often be more effective than blocking... though with the inevitable problems of the 'side' it was protected on thinking they have little reason to compromise and the other 'side' objecting to the 'wrong version'. I've often wished it were possible for a protecting admin to first edit the page to a version they would expect ''neither'' side to agree with. :] As to less bureaucracy... always a good thing. Though right now I think the most bureaucratic part of it is the 'paperwork' required in lining up the diffs... and removing that would mean more work for admins evaluating the situation. That said, I'd rather like to see an 'edit war at XYZ page' format for reports and let the admin(s) determine which users have/have not been edit warring. More work for the admins, but also more fair and thorough than 'Party A' stopping at three reverts so they can run off and report 'Party B' for four... reporting 'pages which are disrupted' rather than 'users who are disrupting' would make it a less hostile process and might encourage other alternatives like protection. Would also lend itself more to dealing with the long term 'three reverts per day by each participant' type edit wars. --] 14:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Seeking clarification== | |||
| Generally speaking, does it violate the 3RR to make four reverts on the same page in the space of 25 hours? My understanding is that this is not a 3RR violation, but I'd appreciate it if others could offer their views on the matter. ] 06:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The edits CJCurrie was referring to were four reverts in 24 hours and 49 minutes. In my view, that's blockable if the admin chooses to block for it — especially when the reverter then reports someone ''else'' for a 3RR violation on the same page. CJCurrie says it isn't blockable, that the 24-hour limit is fixed. For another example of the kind of system-gaming I'm referring to, see . ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm going to lay all of my cards on the table here: | |||
| *The situation with GoldDragon is something that has been going on for several months, and not simply on the page you've cited. He's been admonished for actual 3RR violations several times, and has also been cited for other instances of unprofessional behaviour (on one occasion, he claimed that I had "vandalized" a page by introducing an NPOV template). I've taken '''numerous''' steps to resolve these situations, including multiple requests for informal mediation, but it never seems to work for very long: he simply has no interest in avoiding edit wars, and it's difficult for me to "debate" him without getting dragged down to his level. Others have had the same problem with this user in the past. The sad thing is, I've tried to '''avoid''' getting caught up in edit wars with this user, but it never seems to matter. I'm open to suggestions as to how to resolve this situation, because I'm frankly at a loss. (Having said all of that, I've recently taken steps to resolve this particular edit war.) ] 06:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You could have requested formal mediation, or asked other editors for an opinion, but instead you continue with revert, revert, revert, which is most of what I see you do. You even left an edit summary on that page saying something like "Aren't you getting bored with this?" suggesting that you did, indeed, know how ridiculous it was, because that surely applied to you too. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did ask other editors for an opinion. Almost without exception, they decided against GoldDragon. It didn't help. ] 07:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The primary situation at hand refers to a content dispute at ]. Here's the chain of events: | |||
| #On 21 December, ] added the following edit: Among other things, this edit is factually inaccurate: Carter did not compare modern Palestine to the Rwandan genocide, and Dershowitz did not even claim that he did. I reverted the edit . GHcool then restored the information , and I removed it again (at 07:53, 22 December 2006). This situation was repeated '''again''' and . Up to this point, this was simply a dispute between two contributors. There was no suggestion of a 3RR violation. While some might argue that I was too quick to revert, I considered the information to have been scurrilous (and a propable violation of BLP), and I'm quite comfortable with the reversions that I made. | |||
| #SlimVirgin then entered the debate, and restored the disputed text. At this stage, I decided to post a "disputed notice" (This was not a revert.) I did this to '''avoid''' an edit war, given that more than one person had taken the view that the disputed information was justified. | |||
| #SlimVirgin responded by removing the "disputed" template, which I thought was something we were not supposed to do. In the process, she directed an ''ad hominem'' attack against me. | |||
| #I responded by restoring the template, (01:00). I make no apologies for this decision, as I do not believe that Slim's decision to remove the template was consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. | |||
| #Another contributor later moved the disputed passage to the talk page . I then decided to self-revert my template notice, . My rationale for this was fairly simple: there was no point having it on the page if the disputed information was no longer there. ] 07:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #SlimVirgin then restored the disputed information without restoring the disputed template. In retrospect, this strikes me as somehow dubious. | |||
| #Despite having made three reversions earlier in the day, (, , ), SlimVirgin then made a series of new edits between and . This struck me as a possible 3RR violation in itself, although I did not raise the point at the time. | |||
| #Given that I had self-reverted my edit from 01:00, I believed that the only reverts which "counted" toward a possible 3RR violation were those from 07:53 and 00:45. To avoid any ambiguity, however, I decided to refrain from touching the article again until past 07:53 on the following day. Readers may note that (at 8:42) were not a blanket reversion, but an attempt to create a provisional compromise while the matter was under discussion on the talk page. | |||
| #SlimVirgin then accused me of violating the 3RR (). I indicated that I did not do this, as the last two edits she highlighted were consecutive. She then accused me of system-gaming (). I indicated that I did not do this. At first, I argued the narrow techical point that I had followed the rules to the letter. Later, I indicated that I was not guilty of gaming the system at all. () | |||
| #I also drew attention to the fact that User:Lance6968 was '''actually''' in violation of the 3RR, and asked SlimVirgin if she would care to make any statement on the matter. In fact, I did this twice. (, ). SlimVirgin did not take any steps against Lance6968. In fact, she did not even criticize Lance's actions. | |||
| #Since it was obvious to me that no one else would report Lance, I decided to do so. (. In the process, I made a statement about a possible double standard on the page. SlimVirgin responded by criticizing me, and an argument ensued. SlimVirgin did not refer to Lance's actions in the course of this discussion. I issued an apology for my role in letting the 3RR page discussion get out of hand. ] 07:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #Lance then made a statement on the 3RR page discussion (). He cut up my comments in the process, such that his statement was situated just above my apology. This made it appear as though I was apologizing to Lance, which was not the case, and I moved my comments to their proper location . | |||
| #SlimVirgin then returned the text sequence to the incorrect order, and suggested that I was in the wrong to have corrected it. () I then restored the proper sequence a second time . ] 07:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, no, that's not the chain of events but regardless, for you to say you're "comfortable" with your behavior says more about you than I could, so I'll leave it there. In answer to your first question (and you're an admin, so you should know this), if you report someone for 3RR, and you yourself have made four complex, partial reverts just 49 minutes over the "limit" on the same page, you risk being blocked too if the admin is so inclined. The policy makes that clear in, as I recall, the first paragraph, so I don't know why you're requesting clarification. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, the policy does not say this. Incidentally, readers might be interested to know that my final edit in this chain was not a blanket revert, but an attempt to create a provisional compromise wording. ] 07:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| To summarize: | |||
| *The situation with GoldDragon is indeed ridiculous, and I apologize for getting caught up in it. I'm still not certain how to resolve it. (Am I forbidden to revert his edits, even if they clearly go against a clear page consensus? Such a cure seems worse than the disease.) One way or the other, however, this is peripheral to the main discussion. | |||
| *The situation on PPNA is quite different. I suspect that certain contributors on this page may have an interest in portraying a legitimate content dispute as a "disruption", and in trumping up charges of 3RR violations to create an "edit chill" on the page. Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but the evidence so far is leading me in this direction. | |||
| *I do not believe that I violated either the letter or the spirit of the 3RR. I deliberately waited several hours before contributing to the page again at 08:42, for the specific purpose of preventing '''any''' ambiguity as to whether or not I was permitted to touch the page. | |||
| *I do not appreciate that I was criticized for a 3RR non-violation, while Lance6968 was not criticized for an actual 3RR violation. I also do not appreciate being criticized for bringing forward a complaint against Lance6968, when his edits were clearly in violation of the 3RR. | |||
| *Readers could be forgiven for thinking this entire matter is a content dispute dressed up as something else. ] 07:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===To reiterate my question=== | |||
| As a matter of general policy, is it forbidden to make 4 edits in the space of 25 hours? ] 07:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And to reiterate the answer, as the policy says: "Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." Reporting a user for 3RR after you've engaged in deliberately confusing complex, partial reverts with only 49 minutes to "spare" on the same page is the kind of situation in which an admin might choose to enforce that part of the policy. I hope that answers your question. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::My edits were not disruption, and since my 08:42 contributions were meant to be a productive compromise, I can't really see them as "edit warring" either. (Also, while undoubtedly complex, my edits were not "deliberately confusing"). Btw, do you question my assertion that Lance6968 is actually in violation of the 3RR? ] 08:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::On another matter, would you consider it "disruptive" for an editor to remove a "disputed" template when the person who posted the template is still making his comments on the talk page? ] 08:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Uninvolved layperson here. This policy clearly states in several places three reverts only in a span of 24 hours. Hard and fast numbers. The spirit however is 'do not edit war'. In this specific case, I reviewed the page history, and found that CJCurrie was cognitive of a potential edit war and used alternate means to diffuse the situation, including using the talk page and accepting the edit with a dispute-template qualifier. Other editors, including SlimVirgin, pushed it, though, after these tactics by re-inserting the disputed interview interpretation and accusing others of misconduct. ·] 08:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Without passing judgment on this specific instance as I haven't looked at the article, nor do I care to, I believe the opening paragraph of this article answers your question, CJCurrie. | |||
| ::::''The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, 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.''''' (emphasis mine) | |||
| :::If you must consider the rule as equivalent to speed limits, think of it as the police consider speed limits. The limit is dependent on conditions, if conditions are poor, then the limit is lower, but in good conditions the limit represents the upper bounds. So in the case of 3RR, if an edit war is in progress than three reverts can be enough to block a person. This means whether or not your 4 reverts within 25 hours is enough to get you blocked is up to the reviewing admin. If they believe an edit war is in progress, then you can be blocked for 3 or less reverts in a 24 hour period. --] 09:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *People who intentionally make three reverts every day tend to be blocked for gaming the system; see also ]. ] 10:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A straight answer - no. However, if I were handling a 3RR report where one party skirted the 3RR time limit by less than an hour while reporting the other, I would block both people. If you like, think of it as you taking one for the team -- in my experience it tends to be VERY unhelpful blocking only one side in a revert war -- the blocked party then mainly focusses on how unfair the block was, as opposed to actually learning that the behavior is unacceptable. The 3RR really doesn't work when it takes sides. Because of the language Bobblehead quoted, it would be unfair not to block both parties. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your response. It was my understanding that the rules concerning "excessive reverts that do not technically break the 3RR" were hardly ever enforced, but perhaps I was mistaken. I still don't believe I acted inappropriately here, I'll take extra precautions to avoid edit wars in the future all the same. ] 01:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk page reverts add in? == | |||
| I think that reverts to an articles talk page count separately to reverting the main article. Ie, you can have 3R to both in 24h and not be up for a block (if we're sticking strictly to the numbers). It doesn't come up often, mind you. Does anyone disagree? ] 18:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Well, yeah, but why is someone reverting article talk page entries? If they're doing it to someone else's comments, they should be warned and then blocked if they persist; if they are doing it to their own, then I think that's pretty much OK. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** I think it was a GA tag ] 10:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *** Wow, fights over a "Good article" tag?! I'd have to guess that reverts wars on talk pages are exceedingly rare, since, as noted, it's a violation of talk page rules to edit or delete comments by someone else except in unusual circumstances (vandalism, posting personally revealing information, etc.) I suppose that there could be a revert war when one editor tries to remove his/her comment(s) and another edit reverts them back onto the page (or vice versa, when there is a dispute over whether the posted comment is one of the rare exceptions to the rule about not deleting another editor's comments), but generally editors care a lot more about articles than talk pages. In any case, I agree that talk page reverts and article reverts should be counted separately. ] | ] 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **** Where exactly is it referenced that "it is a violation of talk page rules to edit or delete comments" by other users? - ] 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Two revert-rule== | |||
| Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Two-revert_rule --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(] • ])</small> 13:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This proposal was rejected. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(] • ])</small> 11:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Clarification edit to 3RR wording == | |||
| It seems that WP:3RR is not as clear as it needs to be about when vandalism may be reverted without 3RR being an issue. | |||
| As stated at present, the exception covers only cases which are "simple, obvious" such as graffiti, link spam, etc. | |||
| However according to a recent unblock by ] "3rr doesn't apply in cases of vandalism", so the current exception seems to give an impression that's quite narrow compared to the actual line drawn and can mistakenly lead to 3RR blocks for vandalism reversion. | |||
| The reversion was a quote which was being IP-vandalized to read the opposite of its actual (and linked) source wording. It was a checkable, blatent, vandalistic edit of a cited fact, rather than a genuine editorial dispute, and any editor could confirm this. The same might also apply if someone changed a numeric fact that's cited to a different (false) value that differs from the source quoted. Although reverting simple factual vandalism of this kind is not subject to 3RR, the policy doesn't make it clear they count as "simple obvious vandalism" right now. | |||
| In light of this slight confusion, I'm thinking of carefully adjusting the wording of 3RR to try and make this clearer: | |||
| :* OLD:<br />"reverts that ... are reverts of '''simple, obvious''' vandalism (e.g. graffiti, link spam) are not considered to be contentious." | |||
| :* SUGGESTED:<br />"reverts that ... are reverts of '''simple and obvious''' vandalism (e.g. graffiti, link spam''', and in some cases repeated introduction of blatently false factual statements''') are not considered to be contentious." | |||
| I have tried to tread the line carefully, because any wording that allows >3RR for "false content" will be abused to the n-th degree and back again. But at the same time this needs clarifying and I think it strikes a good balance in allowing appropriate but not inappropriate reversions of this kind. Would others be okay with this 3RR sentence change, or one like it? ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 17:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think, honestly, we should just give the gist of the kind of vandalism that it is okay to break the 3RR in order to revert. ] on ]. I think the use of the phrase "may be blocked" implies that Admins will generally use their discretion. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Agree, a good viewpoint. Can you draft such a gist? ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: A few ideas: We could lose the parenthetical completely, or we could expand it to say "e.g. graffiti, link spam, or similar abuse". The wording that's there now isn't too bad, really. ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Graffiti and link spam are both forms of "rubbish vandalism". The kind of thing I'm thinking of is where someone changes a statement thats cited, to an untrue statement. For example the statement "He sold 1000 copies of his album " to "300,000 copies", or "She lives in New York " to "lives in Antigua". Blatent fact changing where its clear its vandalistic and its clear it's not a genuine editorial dispute. reversion of such vandalism isn't counted for 3RR but the policy doesn't make that clear. I'm not sure that "or similar abuse" helps. Thoughts? ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 05:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Changing things to be blatantly false like that is vandalism. The important thing to do is not change the 3RR wording but to make it very clear in edit comment and talk page that this is what you are doing. All too often people claim 3RR excemptions post-block which they should have claimed when they made the edits ] 13:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The problem is that neither 3RR policy nor ] makes clear that such edits are clear obvious vandalism. So there is no clear view expressed in policy that reverting them is reverting "simple, obvious" vandalism under 3RR. It's not really the edit summary in question; the edit summary wasn't that unclear in the present case. Its that neither ] or ] make clear that this kind of edit counts as "vandalism" as opposed to other forms of inappropriate editing, and hence it isn't clear it's outside 3RR. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 23:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think something is "obvious vandalism" if it's ''obvious'' that it can be described as "vandalism." That's vague.. but then, what's obvious to one person might not be obvious to someone else. And, ]. :) ]]<sup>]</sup> 23:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think this might solve it, without building rules or giving beans: | |||
| ''"In general, reverts that, in the judgement of the reviewing administrator, are reverts of '''simple, obvious''' vandalism (e.g. graffiti, link spam) <u>and erroneous quotes</u> are not considered to be contentious."'' | |||
| The only change is "and erroneous quotes". I don't think that "erroneous quotes" suggests ], so much as just suggesting "you're allowed to fix misquotation errors". But at the same time it adds the needed clarification and leeway to fix facts that differ from their sources vandalistically without 3RR stepping in. Are you okay with that addition? ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I think ] applies, because it gives yet another excuse to edit warriors that their edits didn't violate the 3RR. And, frankly, I don't think the need to fix misquotations is anywhere near as urgent as the need to remove link spam or graffiti, so it probably should not be an exception to the 3RR (in other words, get other editors involved). As a reminder, even removing vandalism shouldn't be done over and over without seeking other intervention. If the adding of those "erroneous quotes" should not be described as "obvious, simple vandalism," then reverting it should not be a 3RR exception. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Side note: fixing bad quotes isn't subjective - or shouldn't be - but it is overly specific and I rather dislike it for that reason ] 15:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would believe that the "vandalism" exception also includes obvious user tests. When newbie adds "Hello, can I really edit here?" to the bottom of a page, our ] tells us it is ''not'' vandalism, yet I have never heard of anybody being blocked because they reverted four different newbies who tried four different tests on the same article. ] ] 15:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I've tried to redraft that paragraph in light of the various comments above. See below: ]. Particularly, I have taken account of the comments by ] on ] and the comments of ] on new user edits. The rest comprises a more helpful explanation of how block/protect and vandalism interact, and clarity as to the process (for example that a block may not be granted for some cases, or may not be granted immediately, so editors know what to do in the meantime). | |||
| ::: Comments in that section below? ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR in relation to other policies == | |||
| Does the 3RR rule trump other policies/guidelines? | |||
| I'm currently working on a page where one user is massively POV pushing (some of which was aimed at discrediting the work of a living person and was thus verging on breaking wikibio rules), and another is adding substantial amounts of WP:OR. Both are very persistent. | |||
| A third user reverted or trimmed their edits several times based on normal wiki procedures for WP:OR/WP:V/WP:NPOV and misc bio, and is now being threatened with the 3RR. | |||
| Who would you say was on the most solid ground in this case? | |||
| ] 09:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : The problem (if you like) is that 3RR is fairly definite; but deciding if something is OR or POV is rather harder to determine. The remedy for people breaking 3RR is to report them at ]; the remedy for POV pushing is recruiting more editors on your side, or an RFC. To be specific, please don't break 3R to remove OR ] 10:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's always better not to break 3R --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(] • ])</small> 11:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are clear exceptions to 3RR - vandalism and negative unsourced info about living persons (]) being the primary two. These are exceptions because, among other things, they are easy to judge. POV pushing and original research are, to a much larger extent, are in the eyes of the beholder. In fact, admins ''don't ask'' editors to provide a basis for their potentially excess edits, which is why it's a good idea to cite vandalism and ] in reverts. ] | ] 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the main "other thing", with regard to living persons, is that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want to get sued. That's also presumably why copyvio is also listed as an exception -- you seem to have omitted to mention that one. --] 21:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Unless there is a blatent obvious vandalism, 3RR trumps several other editing policies. The reason is pretty clear when you look at it. An edit is (in simple terms) either very obviously bad, or not immediately obviously bad. If it's very obviously bad (spam, graffiti, etc) then its down to anyone to fix. But if its something one needs specialist knowledge to check, or contains opinion or the view of some source or some side in a debate, then 3RR kicks in, and the purpose is to prevent people edit warring over facts that both sides 'know' are right/wrong. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Anons and obvious sockpuppets== | |||
| It is among Misplaced Pages's core principles that anyone can edit. However, it is not a core principle that anyone can edit war. In practice, it is widely understood that anon IPs and obvious sockpuppets are used to prosecute edit wars by known editors seeking - usually successfully - to evade 3RR. The frequent success of this enterprise is its primary attractions. This can be judicially neutralized by exempting reverts of anon and obvious sockpuppet ''reverts'' from 3RR. To err on the conservative side, new anon edits would not be exempt, only reverts. Anons (and named accounts) which only ''revert'' are in nearly all cases sockpuppets of active (or banned) users. It is appropriate that policy acknowledge this reality. When established editors revert the ''reverts'' of anons and probable sockpuppets, they do a service to the encylopedia.] 09:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Update to vandalism section== | |||
| Based upon discussion above, covering ] and other points made, I've redrafted the first short paragraph of the "exception: simple vandalism" section. I took account of ] (avoiding specificity and ]) and ] (new user edits), reconciled ] to ], and clarified some problems which have sometimes led to uncertainty for well-meaning editors: | |||
| :{| style="border:1px solid black" | |||
| | OLD : | |||
| : In general, reverts that, in the judgement of the reviewing administrator, are reverts of '''simple, obvious''' vandalism (e.g. graffiti, link spam, et cetera) are not considered to be contentious. | |||
| : Still, repeated reversion against vandalism should be avoided. ''Blocking'' is the preferred solution to repeat vandalism originating from a single user or IP, and ''page protection'' is the preferred solution to repeat vandalism from multiple sources. | |||
| |} | |||
| :{| style="border:1px solid black" | |||
| | NEW: | |||
| : In general, reverts that, in the judgement of the reviewing administrator, are reverts of '''simple and obvious vandalism''' (including graffiti, link spam, et cetera), new user test edits, or disruptive sockpuppets of vandalistic users, are not usually considered to be contentious. Other vandalism reverts than these may still fall under 3RR. | |||
| : Repeated reverts, even of simple vandalism, cause disruption, disputes, and unhelpful entries within the ''page history''. 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 ''blocking'' of vandalistic editors, or ''page protection'' for articles being attacked, with cessation of reversion once this is granted. | |||
| :(Note: Page protection will usually only be appropriate for current and established vandalism, since it also disrupts the actions of genuine editors.) | |||
| |} | |||
| :{| style="border:1px solid #606060" | |||
| | <font color="#606060">continuation (unchanged):</font> | |||
| : <font color="#606060">Non-administrators, who cannot block users or protect pages, may make requests for blocking of vandals at ''Administrator intervention against vandalism'', and requests for protection at ''Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection''. Repeated reversion of an article to deal with vandalism should be considered a last resort.</font> | |||
| : <font color="#606060">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 ''assumptions of bad faith''. Blocking can be expected in such cases.</font> | |||
| |} | |||
| I believe this is a good edit. Its effect and differences are to tackle the main 4 issues in this section and clarify the first sentence, as follows: | |||
| # Examples changed from "e.g" to "including" so it doesn't imply exclusion of other simple obvious vandalism but at the same time doesn't provide any ]. | |||
| # New user edits and disruptive socks of blocked users added, the former because they aren't "vandalism" but are noted as a sensible exception by ] above , the latter as noted in ] as being a confirmed exception to 3RR. | |||
| # Clarify the ''opposing'' aspect, that edits which are not clearly to do with simple, obvious vandalism, may still fall under 3RR. (To pre-empt ].) This makes clear that this section provides only a ''limited'' exception, for other cases 3RR still applies. | |||
| # Rework explanation, making clearer ''why'' blocking or protection is preferable longer term, and why in some cases these might ''not'' be granted despite a degree of active vandalism. (Explanatory sentence only) | |||
| # Clarifying a "gap" that sometimes causes problems: Reversion of simple vandalism is not a breach of 3RR, but ongoing vandalism should be met by seeking blocking or page protection. However the reviewing administrator may decide not to grant the block or PP or may take some time to read the request. So it's worth making clear that block or PP ''should'' be requested once a pattern is established, but until it's granted then reversion of ''simple obvious'' vandalism is permitted. This is so that there is clarity as to the process and so that editors know what's what in the gap period, if simple vandalism is continuing when a block/PP hasn't (yet) been granted. | |||
| Those are the changes posted. The overall aim has been to address the issues discussed previously above, such as how vandalism and 3RR interact, without giving any ]. I think it's a good edit to the policy. Comments? ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I object to the substantive part of this change. "New user tests" are never going to be a 3RR problem, and fall under graffiti anyway. "Disruptive sockpuppets of vandalistic users," however, just encourages serial reverters to describe the editors they are reverting as sockpuppets or vandals, in order to try to exempt themselves from the 3RR. And even in legitimate cases, if the edits aren't "simple and obvious vandalism" but are merely done by "disruptive sockpuppets," I don't think there should be an exception. Before you continue on this, could you please explain why you think the policy needs clarifying so badly? ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks for responding. The problem was twofold: ] states that sockpuppet reverting are not 3RR issues. But the 3RR rule itself, which people will look at for guidance on what's allowed and what's going to lead to a 24 hr block, and which has to be consistent, doesn't say that. It leaves it omitted by implication. Bringing two inconsistent policies into line is a good thing; leaving one saying it's okay and the other silent and hence by implication indicating it isn't, is not. | |||
| :: I take your point on new user edits. I wouldn't have thought of it myself - as you say, it's not exactly a very significant problem. However since 3RR applies to ''any'' reversion on a given page in a 24 hr period, different new user edits ''could'' push an editor's revert count over 3 (as was suggested). At least one person highlighted it, and ] doesn't count this as vandalism, so I figured it's worth saying, on the basis "at least one person wanted it, it makes sense, and it doesn't do any harm". | |||
| :: The last point you make is a sensible one - should edits that arent "simple and obvious vandalism" but are done by "disruptive socks of blocked users", be revertable outside 3RR? Whatever the final answer is, right now we have one source on reversions saying it is, and another silent on the matter. Again, it seems the best position is to bring them into consistency, and then if it's considered a problem or undesirable, discuss that as a separate question and keep or remove it in both. But first things first, having it stated as a rule in one document and silent in the other can never be a good thing, so I'm guided by the positive mention in ] that "fighting sockpuppets" is outside 3RR, a definite, positive statement, and merely ensured 3RR itself reflects that as it stands. If it was a wrong statement there, then we change both of these and remove it, but again consistently. | |||
| :: As for why... 3RR is one of the most common misconduct (as opposed to content) issues in edit disputes and vandalism. Editors who are not administrators routinely try to revert these, and if they are consciencious, they try to stay within 3RR while doing so. So we need to make clear to them exactly where the lines are, and as it stood, the lines weren't quite clear on a few aspects. Without great change, it seemed right to ask others about what kind of issues came up in looking at that section (] was the main one) and then to try and address the gaps, taking others thoughts into account. But for sure, the gaps are better filled. It will benefit the editors who look to this policy, and want to be sure what they are doing is okay, or who are in a situation where they need to know if a given revert while waiting for a response to protection/block request is going to get them blocked themselves. The wording was unnecessarily unhelpful in that sort of area, because things described as outside 3RR in ] weren't mentioned as such in 3RR, and it wasn't made clear what is or isn't okay while waiting for a block/protect decision. These clarifications will help editors facing simple obvious vandalism in future. I got caught this way myself for 4 x vandalism reversion (shortly afterwards being unblocked, deemed no 3RR contravention had occurred), and I'm careful. So certainly it was unclear and probable that others will have had this situation too. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Actually, it seems like the ] page was simply out of date. Keep in mind that ] is not an official policy page, whereas this one is, so between the two, this one is the source I'd consider more authoratative. When it comes to the edits of sockpuppets of banned users, though, the section "Reverting edits from banned or blocked users" contains the exception you were looking for. I'm sorry that you got mistakenly blocked... that sucks for you, but remember that admins are human, too, and can make mistakes. I think the policy should be written to make it clear that there are really only two basic exceptions to the 3-revert rule: (1) non-controversial edits that don't contribute to edit warring and (2) edits required by Misplaced Pages policy (such as removing of copyvio or libel, or reverting a banned user's edits). If that was all that was written, the ''intent'' of the policy would be clear, but the specifics would be very unclear. This vagueness would leave ordinary users unguided, as you say, which I think would discourage them from breaking the 3RR even in cases where it might be reasonable: in other words, they will seek an alternate solution because they fear a block. That's a ''good'' thing when it applies to situations like vandalism reverts or removal of potential libel, because reverting isn't the best solution (but it would be a bad thing if someone thought they couldn't self-revert or something). However, one bad thing about having a vague policy is that the 3RR is meant to be an objective rule, so that admins can enforce limits on edit warring without giving an opening to accusations of bias. | |||
| ::: What we really want is a policy in which (1) there is enough vagueness that users are discouraged from repeatedly reverting, wikilawyering, and attempting to circumvent the 3RR, but (2) there is enough clarity that the rule is objective, so that its application will not inflame edit wars further. Or, put another way, once the policy is clear enough on the exceptions that it can be considered objective, we shouldn't keep clarifying things, or we'll just encourage people to revert ''more,'' which is quite against the point of the policy. If there's any way in which the "vandalism exception" would not be clearly understood by an average user, it's that people are likely to ] that the opposing side in a conflict is vandalizing, and we speicifically address that misunderstanding. In my mind the "graffiti, link spam, et cetera" bit is meant to clarify the level of "simple" or "obvious" we expect -- the point is not to list all types of simple and obvious vandalism. Does it look like it's trying to be a list? If so, how can we rectify that? ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Nice work and I concur with your rationale and thoughts, Mangojuice. I've made one minor accuracy correction to the wording on protection (see below) and one minor wording change where the revision looks stricter than it should be; beyond that it looks good. | |||
| :::: I also note you've fixed ] so it's now consistent and points to ] for exceptions instead of maintaining a separate list, which is a good idea too. It solves my other concern, inconsistency. | |||
| :::: The one correction I did make was to slightly alter ''"Page protection will usually only be appropriate for vandalism from <u>many unrelated users</u> simultaneously"'' to the more accurate ''"... for vandalism from <u>several different sources</u> simultaneously"''. The rationale being that PP (especially semiprotection) is often and regularly granted for pages being hit by a single person on a dynamic IP. The term "sources" covering either IPs, individuals, or user accounts, seems more generic and less likely to suggest ], and it's probably "several" not "many" from the evidence of most protection decisions. | |||
| :::: I also added the sole word "contentious" so that the new sentence "Other vandalism reverts may fall under 3RR" clearly references other <u>contentious</u> reverts as intended, and doesn't imply that clearly noncontentious reverts might be 3RR (which is about how it works, if it's 'not contentious', then its usually okay). This clarifies that the important distinction for 3RR vandalism reversion is whether it's contentious or obvious, not whether it's merely in some list or not. Otherwise, no change, your edit looks fine. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 18:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3rr rule in relation to reverting 3rr breakers == | |||
| There was somthing about this in the article, but I didn't understand what exactly the rule was in this instance. If a user breaks the three revert rule by reverting one article, oh, let's say seven times and the 3rr noticeboard is backlogged and he just keeps doing it, and the other two of us have both restored it three times each, is it a violation to restore it a fourth time if the guy just keeps reverting for no good reason? ] 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You can only revert them once they have been blocked for violating 3RR. Prior to that it may be considered part of the ongoing edit war. --] 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah. Dankechen. ] 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Even then you may wish to be careful about it. There isn't anything preventing someone else from submitting a 3RR against you and from an admin determining you're part of an edit war and blocking you for that. Ideally once someone violates 3RR it is best to leave their last revert, report them, and then once the person is blocked have someone that hasn't reverted that day revert their last edit. Unless it's a copyright violation, vandalism, or violation of ], there really isn't any harm in leaving the disputed content on the article for a few hours. --] 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == My recent revision == | |||
| I recently rewrote this page, and trimmed away much of the fat, because I felt it was getting excessively bloated. You can see my revision here: . But it was , so here I am with my reasons for making the change. | |||
| The most obvious reason to me was that the rule was becoming unclear. I also tried to put the meat of the rule up front, in the lead, rather than having it strewn across several sections (in the current version, the lead and the sections "detail" and "intent of the policy"). I've just seen that there is some good material from older versions of this page which I have overlooked in this regard, and I'll try to work those into a new draft. | |||
| The other clear reason was that the rule was drowning in a sea of tiny, trivial changes which dilute the essential purpose of the rule (to stop people from edit warring) and introduce all sorts of oddities that the wikilawyers can have a field day with. For example, in the current version there is a paragraph on how "reverting for maintenance" is an exception to the rule. We don't need a general exception to cover a single situation, namely cleaning up the ]. | |||
| Other examples of bloat are the instructions on what to do if blocked under 3RR (duplicates block messages) and the statement that persistent offenders may be subject to an ArbCom case. This sort of duplication causes inconsistencies which can only serve to confuse people; this page should be only about the 3RR. | |||
| You'll note that most of the simplification came from the exceptions section. I think that each of these needs plenty of discussion because I am sure that there are plenty of people out there who don't agree on all or even most of those supposed exceptions. The one on blocked users, for example, is incredibly unclear, and the one on a user's own userspace is another example of this. --] (]) 00:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I support the change. It was a vast improvement. The one thing the new version needed was to preserve the "I've broken the 3RR, what do I do" section. I think the spirit of the rule has become unclear thanks to all the words, and I don't see the change as actually changing the policy in any way. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've done another draft, it's available ], with just a couple of small changes to the version available in the history. --] (]) 05:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I support this--the page has indeed gotten too long, and is redundant. Your version is a clear improvement. ] 06:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I endorse your ] for two reasons. First of all, as mentioned above, it's shorter and easier to read. Second, it trims away a good amount of unneeded prose - brevity in policies makes comprehension, and therefore editing, easier.<br />The only part I disagree with (this may well have been in the old version too) is the part of the second to last line of the lead that says "or asking for ]." This implies that you can go running to the AN for help in an edit war, or, at least, I bet someone will eventually interpret it that way (in fact, some content-dispute related sections make me think people ''do'' believe that already.) Could you clarify what sort of assistance they should be asking for that can't be had at ]? ] 22:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The reference to assistance is duplicated from the exceptions section, in a sentence which says that if you are unsure whether something is simple vandalism/copyvio etc, you should ask for assistance rather than reverting. But as you've pointed out, in the lead and out of that context it doesn't make sense, so I've removed that. --] (]) 06:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Now that we have several people agreeing with the change, I've reinstated it, edited slightly. I kept the "I've violated 3RR. What do I do?" section, and de-emphasized the blue-outlined version of the rule. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As far as I can see its OK. Minor nitpick: people sometimes interpret reverting-banned-users exemption to mean they can revert the last revert of someone blocked for 3RR. I don't think you can, and it doesn't come up often. Is it worth including? ] 16:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The previous wording said banned or blocked. The exception for reverting banned users at least has some consensus behind it, but there are so many situations in which a user can be blocked (is it ok to break 3RR to revert someone who has been blocked for unrelated personal attacks, for example?), and so much confusion (as evident on this talk page) that there could not be consensus. Personally I think it's preposterous that anyone can claim they are allowed to breach 3RR to revert someone blocked for breaching 3RR. If the other party had not been blocked when the revert was made, then both of the parties would have been blocked. | |||
| :The short answer is that it's far too confusing to talk about blocked users so I confined it to banned users only, for which there would seem to be consensus. --] (]) 00:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Why did you remove following formulations: | |||
| "This policy does apply to repeatedly moving, deleting, undeleting, or recreating a page." | |||
| "Administrators blocked under this provision must not unblock themselves."? | |||
| To me they don't seem as self-evident, specially the second. ] 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As to the second point, well, Admins are ''never'' supposed to unblock themselves if they're directly blocked, which is covered at ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The first point has been reworked, see the "What is a revert?" section. The second point is obvious and applies any time an admin is blocked; it's utterly unnecessary to clutter this page with it, and it's also a bad idea to choose a wording that can imply that an admin can unblock themselves for other reasons, just not when they've been blocked for 3RR. --] (]) 00:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for clarifications. ] 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Does the 3RR apply here?== | |||
| I'm reverting removals of an entry from ]. Common sense tells me that the 3RR will not apply even if I make four reverts, but I'd hate to be blocked based on an uncommon view of common sense. Is this correct? --] 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Don't make 4R. If you're obviously right, someone else will ] 09:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is, another editor will, in all probability, help you out if you are indeed right. Be very clear what you're doing in your edit summary - that helps others figure out that you're doing the right thing (or not, if not). Also, if it's any consolation, if you're fighting just one editor, and he/she removes stuff for a fourth time, that's a 24 hour block (assuming a warning, of course). -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:18px;">] </font> | <sup>]</sup> 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Soft protection == | |||
| Could we have a 3 revert rule exception for "soft protection", where you use reverts to simulate protection of part of a page, without having to protect the whole page? --] 07:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that would be too confusing. Why not just protect the page in such a circumstance? ]]<sup>]</sup> 10:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Because sometimes doing that on high-traffic pages is more disruptive than the edit war was to start with. :-) --] 12:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think this is an interesting concept and worth discussing. However, I really think the proper place to discuss this would be ]. You're proposing a new kind of page protection here. If adopted, the 3RR would ''have'' to be modified, but it seems like a very bad idea to modify the 3RR if this kind of protection isn't generally an approved concept. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Not so new. IIRC it was one of the original uses people thought of for why to have reversion. --] 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Can you give me an example of a page that has had this kind of partial protection imposed on it? Or for which it has been discussed? To me, technologically, it makes much more sense to simply protect the whole page -- a user encountering that kind of protection will give up: there's nothing they can do. But a "simulated" protection would seem to be just another person reverting them, and they may give up because of the persistence, but they may continue to try to change the article, since they're still able to edit it. ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Policy clarification == | |||
| I would like policy clarification on the appropriateness of 3RR being applied to userpages, and if it is applicable, under what circumstances. - ] 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Generally speaking, a user should not be punished for violating the 3RR in their own user space... but there are exceptions. For instance, if a user violated the 3RR in continuing to use a fair-use image on their user page, I would block. Basically, a user's own user space is pretty much their space, but that doesn't mean they can do just anything with it. ]]<sup>]</sup> 10:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| My concern, is that there is a new trend in censoring people's userpage polemics, rants, userboxes, etc under ] and which violates ] in my opinion. In my case there was no effort at dispute resolution prior to full on edit-warring over rather innocuous content on a userpage. I am interested in clarification of policy on this issue, because I think that in these instances 3RR is being used for malicious ends. - ] 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I would be most unlikely, as administrator, to block someone for making a fourth revert in his own userspace, and would, in fact, be more tempted to block the people who were reverting him. Why, oh why do people have to start replacing messages that a user has seen and doesn't want to keep on his userpage? Why do people have to annoy and harass a mildly troublesome user who isn't vandalizing or disrupting anything? If someone is readding fair use content or egregious personal attacks to his user space, I'll block for copyright violation or for disruption, but not for 3RR. That said, I wouldn't like to see "one's own user space" added to the list of official exceptions. I get a bit concerned when I see people reverting their own userpages and claiming that 3RR "doesn't apply". I would say simply that it "is generally not enforced" in cases of one's own userspace. ]] 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It used to be listed as an exception, but it was somewhat hedged with terms like "generally speaking" and so on. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you recall where the discussion took place and where consensus was reached to remove this exception? I am specifically concerned about users removing polemics, essays, rants, etc. about wikipedia policy from other user's namespace because they find it personally offensive, even though it is not targeting one specifically and is abstract. This happened to me recently when a user removed a rant I had against wikipedia policy on IP editors on my userpage and then another user submitted material for deletion under the same premise ]. - ] 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was removed in the recent large change that streamlined and simplified the policy page. This exception specifically was not discussed. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I fear sometimes that arbitrarity and vaguity in policy is used as a crude bludgeon to bully other users, when the intent of the policies are not explicit or contradict other policies. I personally think that the only exceptions to 3RR which would apply in one's own namespace would fall under ] anyway. Thanks. - ] 21:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible contradiction between this policy page and a warning template == | |||
| I've been looking at some templates to warn users about vandalism, etc., and I came across {{tl|Uw-3rr}}. It says, "Under normal circumstances a user is entitled to three reverts per 24 hour period on a specific page." However, the policy page says, "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors who engage in edit warring may still be blocked from editing even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period." | |||
| My instinct tells me I'd be safer to be guided by the policy page than by the warning template, especially since I looked at the histories and found that the policy page has existed since August 2004, and the template since 2 February this year! Could someone give some clarification, please? And if the template is misleading, could it be altered? Thanks. ] 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The template has now by ]. ] 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: It should probably be deleted even, but perhaps we can keep it around for a while to discover who we should block? O:-) --] 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal: 3 Reverts of CONTENT, not 3 Reverts by user == | |||
| The intent of the 3RR is to stop edit warring. However, I've noticed that the 3RR rule is often gamed in a way that just creates more edit warring. This way is, what I call, the "Revert Round Robin." Basically, two or more users "revert where the other left off", so to speak; no-one goes above 2 reverts, but that particular viewpoint is successfully edit-warred into the article. The 3RR is, at the moment, not equipped to handle this. | |||
| My proposal is to include in the 3RR rule a section about content. Users cannot revert the same content 3 times a day as well as 3 reversions a day. So even if Person A has Person B revert after Person A's two reverts are over, that would still be unacceptable. | |||
| As a result, this would impel the two disputing parties to actually talk it over instead of one side using their superior numbers to keep content in the article (or keep it out) without discussion. This would truly fulfill the goal of stopping edit warring. | |||
| Obviously, this would not apply to obvious vandalism, BLP violations, and so forth (same things that 3RR does not apply to). | |||
| What do people think about this? ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds good in principle. In practice I think stopping crackpots is already too big a pain. Of course sometimes you have ''two'' crackpots, but it's less likely. --] 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I figured a criticism of this idea would be that we need "tag-team edit warring" to sometimes stop a crackpot. Even the 3RR rule says if it needs that much reverting, the community must want it gone... but that's not true. Even if one other person joins in, that doesn't mean the community wants it. I guess that's where I'm coming from on this issue. | |||
| ::The benefit is that there would be far, far less (perhaps no) edit warring. The downside would be that we'd have to talk it out on talk pages. I guess individuals would have to weigh the good versus the bad for themselves, although it seems to me that edit wars are ''never'' good, even if they're trying to keep a "crackpot" (so to speak) out of an article. The problem I see is that for many editors, "crackpot" translates into "someone's viewpoint that I don't agree with"... and that's the very heart of edit warring. ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course this would be ''after'' the other resorts are exhausted, like ], et cetera. Usually editors who are ] enough to invoke dispute resolution are not the type who edit war. Usually. The main sources of edit warring in 3RR context is with ] who are not aware that the rule exists, and therefore would not have the need to "tag-team." However, I do agree with the basic principle that tag-teaming shouldn't be allowed in the place of dispute resolution. ] 01:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't mean to imply that the tag-teaming is intentional, but I've seen likeminded experienced users keep things out of an article by having one person revert twice and another person take up the reverting so that they don't get 3RR'ed. If you want to check it out, look at the history of any seriously controversial article. For bonus points, check out the history of an article that's listed under RfC, or, better yet, under mediation/arbitration. You'll see what I mean. ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 02:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As I say, all that sounds good in theory. But the crackpots you have always with you, and they just keep coming. The only thing that keeps their numbers down a little is that they get in edit wars and get banned. As un-PC as it may be to say it, I think that's a fine outcome, and I think we ought to think long and hard about anything that makes it happen less often. --] 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I oppose this for the same reasons as I gave at ]. A situation like you're describing is clearly ] and ]. I don't think the 3RR has to handle that situation precisely. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Every few weeks some POV-pusher, frustrated that he can't get his policy or consensus violating stuff into an article, comes here and tries to get this change made to policy. As is regularly pointed out, making this change would mean that one editor could effectively hold an article hostage against any number of opposing editors. No, editors are individuals, not amorphous masses, and what you call "tag-teaming" is usually actually a consensus of several editors. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Wow, way to assume good faith... ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 20:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You forget, I've seen your edits, and your talk page comments, and your rather singular interest in "Jewish history", so to speak, or at least in presenting a certain view of one extremely narrow piece of it. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe you're just seeing what you want to see? I've done Spoken Misplaced Pages articles, written various articles about Law, Japanese History, Medicine, etc as well as contributed to a wide range of topics (not to mention my work with disambiguations, copy edits, and vandalism fighting.) My interest in "Jewish History" makes up a total of 17% of my total contributions according to my edit counter (not counting copy edits/spelling errors/reverted vandalism on those pages, the number is significantly lower). That doesn't seem like a "singular interest" to me. On the other hand, I've noticed you only edit articles related to Judaism. But I'm not going to pass any judgment on your edits because I do not assume bad faith. ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 06:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You've "noticed" I "edit articles related to Judaism"? Hardly, unless you have a unique definition of Judaism. I've edited almost 9,000 different articles on Misplaced Pages; you, on the other hand, have made a total of 333 edits to articles. I'd say my span of interests is somewhat wider than yours. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think the real concern here, which may be legitimate, is that such a system simply gives too much power to a minority. The current system, it seems, tries to reduce edit warring while still being at least kind of democratic. Of course, we say it's not democratic, but largely it is, and has to be. That said, I think a proposal of this kind might need some way to assure that small minorities wouldn't be able to disrupt everything. | |||
| So what would happen, if we implemented the policy? We'd suddenly have an immense increase in dispute resolution. Could we handle that? would there be any way to resolve it? That seems to me the question. ] 15:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If we implemented this individuals would hold articles hostage forever, and there would never be consensus; that's what would happen. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==What happens when your report is ignored?== | |||
| I think there needs to be a section on what editors should do when a reported 3RR violation is not acted on by administrators. My idea is that the "reporter" should get a get out of jail card if reversion continues on the disputed page. Thoughts? ] 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't a game. Sometimes there is good reason why a 3RR report isn't acted on. - ] 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well in that case some communication would be appreciated. ] 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::In most cases, a 3RR report that doesn't lead to a block will still get attention. If a report gets old, you can always mention it at ] to try to get someone's attention. However, you should not violate the 3RR yourself; that's the whole point of the 3RR. Just let the other person have their way for the time being. Heck, even if they get blocked, you shouldn't break the 3RR by reverting them back, it's just that no one would be likely to report you, since the other party is blocked. Others violating the 3RR should not be an excuse for you to do so under any circumstances. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==undiscussed addition== | |||
| :On Nov 18, Dmcdevit without proposing and discussion amended this policy page by . This addresses not the policy itself but a case by case interpretation of the policy and this particular wording is rather arrogant. This is rather unwarranted edit in my view. A policy is one thing. How it is interpreted is quite another and it is important to not have this confused. Besides, having such an arrogant statement a part of the policy page does not make a good impression. Administrator's discretion is a tricky and delicate thing and should be threaded with more caution. I would like to see this discussed and consensus reached before the page being altered like that. Until then, I am restoring the original wording. --] 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::moved from ] | |||
| Hi Irpen. I just saw the recent activity at ]. You seem to be under the misconception that policy is prescriptive, when in fact, it is ''descriptive''. I haven't "proposed" anything because this simple sentence () is a statement of current practice with widespread acceptance. You've interpreted it as a change in policy, but it isn't, so I'm replacing it. When you find yourself reverting three people in the space of a day without talking about it first, you might want to question who is trying to change policy. The sentence does not mandate its use, but note its acceptance according to administrators' preference. In the future, when you have an objection to an edit, many people (myself included) consider it disrespectful to revert first without any attempt at communication, and especially without any communication after the fact either. It won't kill anyone to wait a day to get to talk to someone about an edit you disagreed with instead of reverting immediately. The nature of the project is that cooperation and trust are key; it's good to treat others with latitude. ]·] 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Dmcdevit, in the future when you see a change you make to the page being reverted, many people (myself included) consider it disrespectful to reinsert without any attempt at communication, and especially without any communication after the fact either. It won't kill anyone to wait a day to get to talk to someone about an edit someone disagreed with instead of restoring immediately. The nature of the project is that cooperation and trust are key; it's good to treat others with latitude. --] 00:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, Irpen, you've got it backwards. This is a policy page, and changes like you made that are actually substantive should always be discussed first. At least two reverts of your edit included a call for discussion of the issue. As to the substance of the issue, I totally agree with Dmcdevit that this is the way things work, and the page should be descriptive. It may not be totally necessary to bring this one point up, because such blocks can always be justified under ] or ] or such, but as to what the policy is, there's no question this is how things are done. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mango, just check the facts please, will you. The substantive change was made not by me but by Dmcdevit and I undid his change because he made a substantive change to the policy page without discussion and not the other way around. --] 19:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: <small>''Dmcdevit is actually following the flowchart at ] correctly. We've also automatically gotten to ] (though I've been told the latter page needs tidying). So in short, we're all in the clear, procedure-wise.''</small> --] 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Why Block Access to Talk Pages?== | |||
| Something I've been wondering: Why, when people are blocked for revert warring, does the block include access to talk pages? Has this been extensively discussed? I see several problems: | |||
| #Seems counter to the purpose of encouraging talk rather than revert warring | |||
| #Is particularly frustrating to someone who gets blocked | |||
| #Seems punitive | |||
| #Contributes to ] | |||
| #Doesn't seem to serve any purpose | |||
| The only reason I can think of is that we don't want people running across multiple talk pages to complain when they just got blocked. But couldn't that be dealt with some other way? Further problems with this basis: | |||
| #Forces people to use frustrating email appeal system (Is anybody listening? Better email everybody.) | |||
| #Disruptive talk page behavior could always subsequently be blocked | |||
| #If people could still use talk pages, they might be less adamant about getting unblocked (clearly they'd know they couldn't edit the page again for 24 hours anyway). | |||
| #The rule is still somewhat punitive by preventing people from editing any article for 24 hours, even those where they did not edit war. | |||
| #This blocking in regard to all articles, rather than simply the one at issue, already has punitive force. | |||
| I guess the other concern might be that it's not punitive enough, and people would feel free to use their four and then get blocked to no big loss. But then, wouldn't escalating blocks and the stigma of dirty block logs be able to deal with that? Curious what people think. ] 20:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't believe that blocks can be made that granular. The only exception to the rule that a block is for ''all pages'' is the user's own talk page (to appeal a block); this is built into the software (I believe). | |||
| :In other words, you're proposing a change to the software; this isn't something that admins can do on their own. (That doesn't address the issue of whether such a change would be a ''good'' one, but it ''does'' - to some extent - answer your question of "why".) -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 03:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's correct, it is not possible in the software to block a user only from certain namespaces or certain pages. I am aware of people who are at least considering implementing things like per-page blocking in extensions, but there hasn't been much enthusiasm from the devs on this front. | |||
| ::As to the desirability of such a feature, I don't really think it would be an improvement. The 3RR is like the proverbial rolled-up newspaper that one thwacks one's dog on the nose with to teach them that they've been bad: the idea is to encourage the behaviour of going to the talk page - and involving other editors - as a first resort, not simply after one has run out of reverts. If a user employs the wrong behaviour (edit warring) they get sent to the corner to think about what they've done, and so do all the other children who've been edit warring with them. --] (]) 07:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Basically, the only way to implement this kind of block from an article only would be to protect the article page, which ''is'' done on occasion. Talk pages are not protected when article pages are. I don't think I would want a software change to allow for extremely granular blocks; it sounds hard to implement, hard to use, and not that useful. ]]<sup>]</sup> 12:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Interesting, I was wondering if it was tech-related. I don't know, though, it would seem like a potentially big improvement to me. Per Bainer's comment, I see several interests being balanced by ]: protection, deterrance, keeping people guessing so they don't get too legalistic. Still, there seems to be some frustration with the continuing edit warring. As far as I can see, the problem partly relates to the conflict between those who want more punitive measures to really stamp it out vs. others who want more tolerance and fairness and presumptions of innocense, right? That said, I'd think one benefit of separating talk and article blocks would be to allow more vigilant ending of edit wars, while not blocking out their total involvement. This would say if you violate 3RR on a page once, you get blocked from editing all articles for 24 hrs. Twice, 72 hrs. Thrice, a week, etc. But we won't prevent you from participating in talk. | |||
| Of course we don't want to over-complicate the system. Speaking personally, though, I have to say I was pretty surprised upon first being blocked for a 3RR violation (which like everybody, I guess, I didn't think I'd committed) and finding that I wasn't even able to edit talk pages. I later got used to the idea, but isn't it a bit strange? We're saying people should stop edit warring and get back to talk, yet we then block them from using the talk pages. Simply from an outside perspective, I would never have guessed people would be blocked from editing talk pages, unless they were actually vandalizing them or trolling, etc. | |||
| So is the fear, then, that blocking people from articles wouldn't be frustrating enough to actually deter edit warring? So people would constantly tread the line and violate it without any real concern? I'd just think there must be better ways to deal with this, for instance longer time periods, than blocking access to talk pages. ] 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''I have to say I was pretty surprised upon first being blocked for a 3RR violation (which like everybody, I guess, I didn't think I'd committed)'' - I was under the impression that admins generally wouldn't block for a 3RR violation unless a user had been specifically warned (and then did another revert, or did a 3RR violation at a later date/time). | |||
| :As far as blocking ''everything'', my sense is that people here have what might be called a longer view - that what matters is what happens in a week or a month or longer to an article, rather than that it must be accurate 24/7, 365 days a year. If one editor can't participate for a day, it's no big deal - editors have real life commitments that often keep them away for weeks if not months. Nothing (well, very little) ever ''disappears'' from Misplaced Pages; you can always revert to a day-old or week-old version of an article (''not'', generally, a good idea) or (better) compare the current version of the article to what it was when you saw it last. | |||
| :Finally, consider one ''benefit'' of a block - it's a sort of forced wikibreak, giving an editor a chance to calm down and (possibly) put the importance of a Misplaced Pages article (or two) in perspective (say, compared to having a heart attack caused by excessive stress). If the editor could continue arguing on talk pages, it wouldn't be that much of a chance to calm down. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 22:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, that's true in a way. Are we really so sure that getting blocked (and muzzled) tends to give people greater perspective, though? It strikes me as pretty speculative, for a rule trying to do the least possible to protect WP. My thought would be that WP would try to treat people like they simply didn't understand the rules (like we spend so much time treating vandals), not that they need perspective or a whack on the nose (for people who are actually presumably trying to improve WP). Of course, we do give warnings, but I think we also forget how complex WP's rules are, in addition to people's tendency to make mistakes. Isn't it a bit odd to start by assuming that what people need is a moral/life lesson? Maybe they really just need to be told "Yes, that violated the rules, which means you can't edit WP articles until this time tomorrow," and the message would get across. ] 15:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Also, I just wonder: if somebody is so stressed it causes them to break 3RR, and so they then get blocked while the other guy presumably doesn't, does that really reduce their stress? I have to say, if there have been wiki-heart-attacks, I'd actually be willing to bet that was the situation...] 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Enlisting others to circumvent 3RR? == | |||
| Here's an interesting twist on 3RR circumvention I saw mention of on someone's user talk page today; say User A is on the verge of violating 3RR if they make one more revert, so they decide to contact friendly User B to go make the revert for them. I suppose it'd be hard to prove collusion in such a case unless they blatantly talked about it openly here, but I was just curious if this has ever come up before? ] 21:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Explicitly permitted. Though better would be ]. See also ] --] 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll quote from the of this page: "If the edit really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it – and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct." What's the difference between "collusion" and "cooperation" in this context, and more importantly, how would you make that difference clear in the policy? See also ] and ] above for recent examples where the idea of making the rule apply to particular content or to "sides" in a dispute, rather than individuals, has been discussed. | |||
| ::The 3RR is only to deal with individuals who make too many reverts. Other problems can be dealt with elsewhere; recruiting people to participate in an edit war, especially when ] is involved, is likely to be considered ], for example. There's no need to introduce something here to counter that which would have the downside of making it easier for "a single editor hold community consensus to ransom", as ] put it. --] (]) 00:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == What constitutes a revert? == | |||
| This question has come up via unblock-en-l, regarding Crum375's block of ] for edits to ]. Discussion includes ], ], ] primarily. | |||
| Precis of question: does a first recent edit which partially restores and partially modifies detailed wording which an editor had originally created but last edited a month previously count as an initial "revert" for purposes of 3RR? | |||
| The specifics in this case come down to a one-word disagreement between two editors, over "forced" versus "compulsory". There are other phrasings involved, but those have evolved over time. | |||
| There had been a number of intermediate edits, including one by the subsequently 3RR blocked editor, which left the section unmodified after the last change/revert (once each) cycle. | |||
| My understanding of the usage of 3RR is that its intent is to prevent edit warring and in particular sterile edit warring. In this case, both parties stopped at what they interpreted 3RR to cover, and were commenting on the talk page appropriately. | |||
| Crum375 and SlimVirgin have both indicated that they feel that the first Feb 28th edit counts as a first revert. I disagreed, but I pose the question here for comment to see if this is me interpreting the guideline in a nonstandard manner against other admins' consensus, and to seek clarification on how rigidly people are enforcing first-edits of this nature. | |||
| Comments from all (including clarifications from Crum375 and SlimVirgin) welcome. ] 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a clear 3RR violation, showing four reverts in 68 minutes by an editor who had already been blocked twice during the preceding seven days for personal attacks. The edits were: | |||
| :*Version reverted to: , Melonbarmonster adds the word "forced." | |||
| :* 1st revert: , Melonbarmonster restores the word "forced." | |||
| :* 2nd revert: , Melonbarmonster restores the word "forced." | |||
| :* 3rd revert: , Melonbarmonster restores the word "forced." | |||
| :* 4th revert: , Melonbarmonster restores the word "forced." | |||
| :George feels it's a "broad interpretation of 3RR," as he wrote on his talk page, to call the first edit a revert, given that the previous version is from 35 days earlier. I might agree if the previous version had been created by a different editor, so that the editor accused of the violation couldn't be expected to know about it. But in this case, it was the same edit made by the same editor, and he almost certainly did realize that he'd already inserted this into the article, and that it had been rejected. He then proceeded to revert to it four times in 68 minutes, ignoring a warning that he was about to violate 3RR. It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of editing the 3RR rule is designed to prevent. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If both parties have stopped reverting and are engaged in discussion on the talkpage, there is no need to block anyone regardless of whether it's arguable there was a fourth revert. Enforcement of the 3RR is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. (General observation, I haven't reviewed this specific case.) ] 02:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Brad, it's almost always the case that blocks take place several hours after the reverting has stopped, simply because of the time it takes for the report to be made and acted upon. That doesn't make the block invalid; on the contrary, it'll hopefully prevent Melonbarmonster from violating it in the future. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think I'm out of sync with the general enforcement policy on 3RR. The one night I was there I wound up giving out a lot of warnings rather than blocks, and my talkpage was beseiged with complaints of "I'm entitled to have my opponent blocked, why didn't you do that?!" It would be interesting if we could do some sort of controlled experiment to see whether 24-hour blocks add more in deterrence than they take away of editing (including editing of articles unrelated to the one being edit-warred on). In the meatime, I think I will leave 3RR enforcement to admins willing to be stricter than I seem to be. ] 03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's always preferable to warn editors before they violate, or before they're reported, but in this case Melonbar ''was'' warned, but he ignored it and reverted again anyway. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I want contribute to this discussion if I may. I left this comment on my own talk page in response to George but I feel it's relevant to this discussion. | |||
| ::::While I had no problem just waiting out the block, I'm still trying to bring attention to this and get more feedback in hopes of some sort of rasonable understanding bc I feel that Slimvirgin and Crud573 are not correct on the facts of the situation. | |||
| ::::From what I can gather Crum is still representing my first edit as a reversion to an edit that I proposed back in January(mind you he had no idea about the January version when he first blocked me!!!). Those two versions contain similar elements(such as "force") but they are not the same! There are many compromised elements present in my recent edit that were not in the January version which is why it was supported by a third editor who had rejected my January edit proposal. Slimvirgin and Crum are wrongly ignoring the evolution between those two versions(documented in the History and Talk page of "Japanese people"). I've explained this over and over but Crum has yet to respond on this point and is stuck on the fact that "force" was added in both the January edit and my recent edit and slimvirgin(and perhaps other admins) seems to have just taken Crum at his word. | |||
| ::::My 2 cents on the policy question is that I think there has to be some issues that need to be clarified: | |||
| ::::1. '''There has to be a policy that enables administrators and editors to distinguish a REVERT and a normal EDIT when the edits involve same words which are being reworked, reused in a normal editing process by editors working out disagreements'''. My case presents an example when simply looking for same edit elements(such as looking for addition of "force" in place of "compulsory") misses the natural progression of edits that may use, delete, reuse the same edit elements in different variation. E.g., just bc "force" was proposed in multiple edits doesn't mean that each edit containing that word is automatically a REVERT. Admins should be capable of looking beyond reappearance of a single "edit" element and distinguish REVERTS from instances when editors are engaged in normal editing with edit proposals that contain different variations of the same edit element. To ignore the existence of this distinction in policy creates a ridiculous situation in which editors can't propose different and original uses of edit element(s) from previous edit versions ecause it would be considered a REVERT. This is not what the 3RR and wiki policy against RW are trying to prevent. | |||
| ::::2. A clear, classic example of a revert is when an edit changes the text back to a previous version in whole or in part. However, '''it must be noted in policy that this doesn't preclude editors from reusing elements of previous edits in novel ways or in a normal edit process to trying to resolve differences.''' You want editors to do more of this: to rework and propose compromised versions of previously disagreed elements in new arrangements and compromise and be flexible. This is how you prevent edit wars. | |||
| ::::3. '''If RW'ing is deemed enough for a block, the block must be also placed on the other party engaged in the same level of RW'ing'''. It makes no sense to block only the reported party(reported by the RW opponent) for RW while taking no action against the reciprocating party. | |||
| ::::4. '''The process of review of Unblock requests must be conducted by third party admins'''. Admins who placed the Block becomes a biased party as soon as review is requested and are more likely than neutral admins to be unwilling to overturn their own decision. It is unfair to make blocked editors who may have been wrongly blocked to have the burden of convincing the admin that they were wrong. This defeats the purpose of review and is bad policy. melonbarmonster 03:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Melonbar, you've made 193 edits to articles, and in the space of seven days have been blocked three times, including for , which clearly shows you counting reverts; and for calling someone an . Then you repeatedly remove the various admin warnings and block template from your talk page, to the point where the page has to be protected. You continue edit warring, you're warned about 3RR, you ignore the warning, and so you're blocked. You then bombard the blocking admin with nine e-mails; you involve George from the unblock list; and you post 35 times about it on your talk page, mine, and here, even though it's a straightforward and obvious violation (no matter what you say, it is). All in all, this is not a good track record. My advice to you is to read our policies, particularly the content policies ] and ], and ], and ], and get on with increasing your edit count to the actual encyclopedia rather than to talk pages. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::For some background on this having dealt with this user myself I'd say that a 3rr block doesn't surprise me. I had first encountered the user when he was in a revert war with another user on the ] article. I had warned the user about our 3rr policy and he responded by leaving personal attacks on my talk page telling me to "take your POV crap elsewhere" Subsequently I blocked the user for personal attacks, I reported the block on AN/I because it was an attack on myself and I wanted it double checked by other admins. Some administrators thought it was to early to block and another administrator ] had also disagreed and unblocked. After this same user continued to make attacks against an IP editor and the same unblocking administrator Fayssal blocked him again for personal attacks. After that he proceeded to continue to remove warnings and block templates from his talk page. He refused to stop and I had no option but to protect the page. Myself and Fayssal set up a "deal" where we told him to archive everything with block messages and warnings and try and start over. I was hoping this advice would be taken seriously, unfortunately it seems it has not. After reviewing this I think this particular block was a correct one. The user was edit warring on that page, the version he was reverting to is not relevant to the discussion. Furthermore it is quite obvious from previous occasions that this user does not heed warnings against edit warring. Let's not let wikilawyering by frequently blocked users tie the hands of our administrators.--] 12:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Melonballmonster didn't raise the policy question, I did, because two admins I respect disagree with what I thought the policy was saying in practice, and that worries me. | |||
| :::::::Regardless of the particulars, I'd like to discuss disambiguating the policy, because as it's being stated above, I think I've violated it a few times, and I've seen a whole lot of others do the same (including other respected admins...), and that leaves me more than a bit worried. | |||
| :::::::Part of the problem with legislation-by-precedent is that the cases which reach the discussion stage or appeal stage are generally terrible cases in some manner. Melonballmonster's case is terrible due to the other stuff, but the point remains - where do we draw the line on reversions starting? Thanks. ] 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::George, can you cite examples of where you or other admins have violated the policy because of the ambiguity of the time-frame issue? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I would have to go looking for a specific example, and it's not going to be anything recent, but I can recall situations where there were contentous things and moderate edit warring with ongoing discussions, where I did three clear reverts and stopped, and had done other non-immediate-revert edits prior to that. All the examples I can find recently involved apparent vandalism and don't exactly count, but I bet if you go back more than 6 months I did something along those lines. ] 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not quite sure what your main point is, but if it's the issue of timeframe (that the version reverted to was from 35 days earlier by the same editor), that's a matter for the judgment of the blocking admin. 3RR violations aren't totally objective things as some people believe: there are often nuances that the admin has to evaluate, the timing of the version reverted to being one of them. In this case, it was clear cut: the blocked editor was the one who had made the edit, and it was the same edit that he reverted to 35 days later, after being warned not to. In other cases, it might be less clear cut: if the version reverted to had been from six months ago and a different editor had inserted it, then it might be something the admin wouldn't want to take into account. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::If I may, I'd like to reiterate my understanding of the 3RR 'version reverted to', that I also made on George's Talk page. As I understand it, the intent of the 'version reverted to' is simply to show the editor's '''preferred version''' - it itself is not part of an 'edit war'. IOW, assuming his/her opinion about things is fairly stable, that opinion could easily remain the same for months, if not years. It is not strictly needed per ], but it is required on the ] page to make the reports as clear cut and as conclusive as possible. AFAIK, once you can show the above report, that an editor inserted his favored word (as demonstrated by an older 'version reverted to') into an article four times within 24 hours, each time being reverted by others, it is clear and unambiguous violation of 3RR. The important issue here is to decide if the first 'revert' of the four is an actual reversion, and the way to determine that, IMO, is to compare it with the version reverted to from the past, demonstrating the editor's position on that specific wording or issue. ] 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ladies and/or Gentlemen, with all due respect I did not leave these comments to prove that I had a steller wiki record or to ask for the wikian of the month award or to claim I've made a million edits, etc.. Please do not equivocate the actual issues that lead to the block in question which is the topic in question. The facts and arguments that deal with the substance of this incident still awaits a substantive discussion. | |||
| :::Sainjust, I must point out that you were simply wrong and I still question the NPOV-ness of your involvement in the incident which you have brought up. You have twisted the facts in your summary and I could give a lengthy rebutt but this is not the right place for that which is a point that has passed you.melonbarmonster 17:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Melonbar, this is not the place to discuss your block any further. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Nor my wiki record, experience, etc.. I just wanted to leave my 2 cents in good faith without any disrespect since I thought this was a discussion about possible policy ambiguities which arose out of my unblock request and review. | |||
| :::::Question posed by George still remains for discussion: "does a first recent edit which partially restores and partially modifies detailed wording which an editor had originally created but last edited a month previously count as an initial 'revert' for purposes of 3RR?"melonbarmonster 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It's a clear violation, and there's no "statue of limitations" on the version reverted to. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yah. I recently had an edit warrior revert a specific piece of text to something they insisted on two years ago. Some edit warriors have long memories, they want that "version reverted to" to be stale, they think it gives them 4RR. It exacerbates the first mover problem to ignore it. ] 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The time-frame isn't the issue here. If the same editor makes the same edit, that's a clear revert without question even if it's months. However, the question being posed is when does an edit becomes a revert when partial restoration of previous versions are made? George posed it well above. melonbarmonster 04:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sometimes reverts hinge around restoration of one particular fact. If an editor repeatedly inserts that Kyoto is the ], while making other unique constructive edits it is a revert. ] 06:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Sometimes" is where the issue lies. In what cases is it a revert(e.g. your example with Kyoto being capital of Japan) and in what cases is it not a revert? Clearly, not ALL reuse of a word(as was the case here) or an edit element in a new variation is not a revert. If that were the case, it would create a ridiculous situation in which editors can only try using a word or propose an edit element once. You want editors to heed each others' disagreements and concerns by proposing novel compromises and proposing new variations of past edit versions.melonbarmonster 01:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I'd say that any time you are reverting to an edit three or four times in a 24 hour period, you are at risk of being in precisely the sort of edit war that 3RR was designed to prevent. If your point is that the policy allowing flexibility on the part of the blocking admin makes it harder for people to edit war, and may make them consider their actions more carefully, my response would be "Yes. Exactly. We want that." ] 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| To add a minority report. I disagree with the analysis made by Crum375, Jayjg and SchmuckyTheCat, I think that time frame is relevant. If the original edit was more than a month ago (picking an arbitrary statute of limitations) then I would not consider the first edit to be revert but a new edit. The whole point of this policy was to give the blood a chance to cool. If an editor still thinks that they were correct and enough time has passed that this is a cold blooded change, then I do not think that it can be called a revert to introduce the change. --] 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Summary: I was wrong=== | |||
| I think I will summarize the above as "my interpretation was not consistent with admin standards as a whole" and overly-liberal. Information noted, thanks everyone. ] 02:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Persistent once-a-day reversions? == | |||
| Is there a rule against persistently reverting once a day, thus resulting in a (slow moving) edit war? I refer to where as you may note there is a very slow revert war between one user (]) and many other users (including myself) stretching back, I don't know, months... where ] would revert once a day, then get reverted on the same day by some other editor, then repeat the same process the next day. --] (]) 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There doesn't have to be an automatic procedure for everything. There's plenty of latitude in 3rr for an admin to block this user for that. Or you could start a user-conduct RfC. --] 02:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or, to put it another way, ] can lead to blocking even if the 3RR isn't being violated... as long as a block is really necessary. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks for the pointers. --] (]) 04:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR, non-identical revisions, and other joyous things == | |||
| , . Anyone care to weigh in on this? Essentially, it looks like this user violated 3RR as he wholly or partially undid the edits of other users more than three times within 24 hours. There's debate over whether the undoings constitute "reverts", though. -- ] <small>(])</small> 04:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the issue is when does an edit become a 'revert'? Or what distinguishes an edit from a revert? ] 04:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::And I still hold that these are reverts. They're ''undoing'' other editors edits (not randomly, either), and are pulling the whole or part of the page back to a previous revision. -- ] <small>(])</small> 04:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note: considering the user has pretty much completely stopped the warring and such, I'm not looking for a block. It's only a clarification / solidification of the definition that I'm seeking here. -- ] <small>(])</small> 05:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Three of the four are unquestionably reverts, they each are identical to earlier versions of the page. The fourth is a revert with two words changed from earlier versions, and the section in question is identical to versions before that. --] 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the question here is more generic; what defines a 'revert'? If the sole criterion is that each edit somehow roughly matches an earlier one (but all are different), especially if we are talking about single word changes and/or punctutations, we are getting very close to just regular (possibly tendentious) edits. If we start flagging regular edits as reverts, we'd be blurring the clearness of regular reverts, where the editor seems to have a clear agenda, always re-introducing the same old version that has been rejected by others. ] 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Again, and again, and again. The definition on ] is that a revert is an edit that wholly or partially undoes the edits of another user. It doesn't matter if the revision reverted to is identical. These edits were all intended to undo any effort to join two sentences, so even by your definition they seem to be reverts. -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We clearly also include as 'revert' the '''addition''' of a word (for example), so we would almost include ''any'' edit as a revert, potentially. So where do we draw the line? It seems to me that the only reasonable distinction would be when there is a clear 'version reverted to'. Having different versions for near-single word 'reverts', that only approximately match the edits, seems to me to be a stretch, and very close to regular edits. I welcome other opinions here. ] 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::A revert is an '''''undoing'''''. If different people repeatedly remove a word, the undoing of those edits (i.e. by readding the word) constitutes ''reverting''. Hence your comparison doesn't seem to make any sense. If these were original ways of approaching the problems, such as completely rewording the paragraph in a new way each time, they would not be reverts. They, however, are not; the user is distinctly restoring a previous version. -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (undent, multiple edit conflicts) The addition of a word is a revert if that addition has happened previously and been reverted. An addition is an edit if it's adding a word for the first time. And as 3RR policy specifically says, reverts don't all have to be to a single version. Have you looked at the diffs? Three of the reverts are identical to earlier versions, not "only approximately match". Here: | |||
| "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." That's what the page defines as a revert. The difference between a "regular edit" and a revert is that a regular edit creates a new version of the content in question while a revert takes it back to an older version. In this particular case, there's no question that three of the edits took the page back exactly to an earlier version (not "roughly matches" but a revert to the exact same version). Can we at least agree that those three are reverts? The fourth doesn't take the entire page exactly back to an earlier version of the full page (because other edits have been made in the meantime which weren't reverted), but it does take the paragraph in question back to exactly the same version it had been in previously ("same old version that has been rejected by others"). I'd argue that's a revert as well (although probably a partial revert, which still counts towards a 3RR violation). --] 17:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I would agree that if someone prepared a well presented 3RR report, showing clearly that each alleged revert takes us back to a previous version that was previously rejected by others, it could possibly fly. In this specific case, FWIW, no such effort was made, at least not initially. Additionally, as you note, the 4th revert is not even a perfect match against any previous version. The question is how much effort should be expended on one specific report - I would argue that if the edit pattern is complex, we should shoot for a ] and not try to shoe-horn an ill-fitting case into the supposedly straight-forward ] page. It seems to me that ill-fitting cases (or otherwise improperly prepared reports) that are filed there result in a lot of time and effort invested, that could be better applied elsewhere. ] 20:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed it was poorly prepared, though I did eventually get around to properly describing it. The discussion left that and went on to the validity of labelling the edits as 'reverts' and such though, which is the only reason I brought it here. -- ] <small>(])</small> 23:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't think we need a strict formal definition of "revert" because that only encourages wikilawyering. The idea behind the rule is clear. ] 12:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Is this intentional?== | |||
| A user can remove a link, and I restore it because it was useful. He picks another link and I restore it. Repeat twice more. Am I correct in that he has not made any reverts, and I have made four? --] 10:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A revert is any action that undoes the action(s) of another contributor (or other contributors). Someone obviously took the action of adding the link in the first place; simply removing it is undoing that work. --] (]) 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::However, the link was there from the time that section was written. Are you saying that Indon made 10 reverts on ]? --] 18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Removing or re-adding a link is a revert if it undoes the actions of another editor. If the user adds a different link each time, the it may not be a revert, but it still may be disruptive. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even re-adding a ''different'' link each time, as long as each link has already been specifically rejected in the past by another editor, would still constitute a 'revert'. Not all reversions must be to the same revision, so in theory one could have 4 different added links, each previously rejected, adding up to a ] violation if done within 24 hours. ] 18:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indon was removing links based on (what I believe to be) an incorrect interpretation of the manual of style. Was each of his removals a revert? --] 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==MONGO RfA Exception to 3RR== | |||
| ] gives an additional exception that should be added to this policy. --] 21:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I assume that would fall under the category of "reversion of vandalism," which is already mentioned, but I'm not sure...--] (] | ]) 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pretty much, yes. ] 09:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR violations possible even if no one responds on the discussion page? == | |||
| Recently, I was warned not to run afoul of 3RR and apparently skated close to the edge of being blocked. This seemed a little odd to me since, up to that point, I had never recieved a warning of any sort on Misplaced Pages, and have never had a dispute on WP that I was not more than willing to resolve through discussion, even if it meant dropping a legitimate concern just to prove good faith. | |||
| But then came this: | |||
| ] | |||
| This matter is a little troublesome for the following reasons: | |||
| * The entire "conflict" related to an issue that was actually initiated in article talk by other contributors besides me (and with whom I had no prior relationship); | |||
| * I thought they made a good point, and saw fit to address the issue, meticulously documenting my rationale every step of the way (since it is a controversial article); | |||
| * I made (what I considered to be) a reasonable NPOV edit, and requested discussion from anyone who might have found fault with it; | |||
| * Every single edit summary I made included a request for comments on Talk; | |||
| * I made only two "undo-style" reverts (because my edits were undone without discussion, and with vague edit summaries that didn't even seem to address the issue initially raised) | |||
| * The very first "discussion" of any sort I recieved was a 3RR warning (on my user talk page) | |||
| * All but two of the "reverts" I was accused of were what I genuinely considered good-faith efforts to resolve the (up till then) entirely vague complaints that "overruled" me in edit summaries, (I *thought* I was properly addressing their summaries instead of racking up a toll on the 3RR meter) | |||
| * I was later informed that introducing *any* prior wording constitutes a "revert" (I was under the assumption that only the "UNDO"s counted as reverts) | |||
| This seems manifestly inconsistent with the spirit of WP policy regarding consensus and good faith. Under facts like this, users of a particular inclination could overrule someone's edits without even bothering to ''look'' at the discussion page, let alone refute their rationale, or dispute their credibility, or explain why they should stop editing (for example, a current effort at consensus is underway, or the article is undergoing substantial revision). | |||
| Yes, I am only one person, but do "drive-by" undiscussed deleletions with garden-variety buzzword-only edit summaries ("POV not allowed", "weasel words violating WP:OR") rise to the level of the sort of content intended to be protected by 3RR? Shouldn't contributors ''at least'' be required to participate in a pre-existing discussion before the 3RR meter starts ticking against a user? | |||
| This is ''especially'' of concern since 3RR violations apparently entail a requirement not to introduce *any* prior language, which could easily be "accidentally" violated (whereas an "UNDO" is much more obviously avoidable).] 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <font size="-2">NOTE: In no way do I impugn the good faith of any contributors involved in the aforementioned matter. Reasonable people can see things differently, and any concerns I raise here are strictly matters related to interpretation of existing WP policy alone.</font> | |||
| :It's bad when editors don't discuss on the talk page, but 3RR isn't the place to address that, nor is refusal to discuss an exemption from 3RR. If you have problems with editors doing that, I'd recommend finding another way to get other editors or admins to look at the situation, such as ]. --] 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Your response makes sense, although it suggests ], ], ] (and perhaps others) could use substantial clarification, since "taking it to the discussion page" is the first-phase 'antidote' to "edit warring" (exactly what ] is in place to prevent). | |||
| Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the | |||
| dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your | |||
| position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. | |||
| ::(excerpted from ]). If good faith pursuit of discussion is ''not'' a sufficient basis for disclaiming an accusation of "edit warring," and failure to pursue discussion does not prevent a party from invoking 3RR against someone who ''does'' pursue discussion, it would seem some clarification is indeed in order. Just some thoughts ... thanks for your response. ] 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::To cut to the heart of the matter, it's good that you were trying to encourage discussion. Nonetheless, when edits get to the point of 3RR violation, merely calling for discussion isn't enough. Sometimes, you just have to let the article stay in the state you don't like until things really get resolved: just because there has been discussion, or you are willing to discuss, doesn't justify quick flip-flop reverting after a certain point. As for what to do in the situation, I'd say pursue discussion more if early attempts don't work out. Go to a user's user talk page (people don't always look at edit summaries), start discussion on the talk page. If the situation is like one lone editor trying to hold consensus hostage, take it to ]; if it's more complex, start ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 12:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Duly noted. Thanks for your response and for taking the time to review my question. Regards. ] 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Suggestion for a Policy Revision== | |||
| The current policy is sort of rough. Based upon the way it is written a person can get a block even if they are not really edit warring. They might simply wander on a page and make 4 edits that they think are ok but that remove four previous edits. This is really too rough. | |||
| Furthermore, a block from the whole project might be too much, particularly for the first offense or rare offenses. | |||
| Why not a ban from that particular article... say for a week, instead of a block from the whole project for a day or two? --] 23:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Just making edits don't necessarily count as reverts. Also, if the edits are in proximity or consecutive, they count as one revert. There are plenty of caveats that allow good-faithed editors to make good contributions. ~ ] 01:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, if your edits are deletes of something that someone (or a variety of people) have just added, you are reverting. Yes, its true. I think I nearly got a block for something like that not too long ago! | |||
| ::But anyway... I still think a ban from an article (you might get heated on one article but not on all of them) is a better way to go than a block from the project. You could go and do good editing elsewhere. | |||
| ::But I can see others have proposed similar or other things here and none of them have seen any sun or air, so this will die too. Misplaced Pages has no good process for proposing changes to policies or making them happen. Its ridiculous. --] 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not true. Lots of policies have evolved productively over time. This one is rather entrenched, but I think there are some useful ideas out there. I had mentioned taking a look at this whole area in my RfA statement, so let me think about this for a bit longer and I may make a proposal. ] 02:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Agreed:''' Although I withhold comment on the point about the policy change procedure (that's a totally separate issue), I think ] raises some legitimate concerns about 3RR. It seems some WP contributors make very expansive application of what constitutes a "revert" and this expansive application, combined with a strategy of "block first, ask questions later (or never)" can result in prejudicial outcomes against contributors who are entirely acting in good faith, willing to discuss and substantiate their actions, and reach consensus. Proposed blocks against well-meaning editors who are not otherwise disruptive, intransigent, self-promoting or otherwise abusing WP resources should ''at least'' be met with the highest degree of scrutiny and caution. ] 03:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It may be worth remembering that admins are not jerks, and have a measure of common sense. If someone is clearly not revert-warring, they won't be blocked under the 3RR. It may be worth mentioning on the page more strongly. Currently, we have "''Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule.''" which does capture the basic point, but could be worded more strongly. Also, there could be more emphasis that breaking the rule ''may'' lead to a block (as opposed to "does" or "must" or "should", et cetera). ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::And let me add that currently, there is not the technology in place to automatically block a user from a single article but not from editing generally. There are such things as ] but those have to be manually enforced. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration Committee precedents == | |||
| Proposed section: | |||
| <blockquote style="border: 1px solid blue; padding: 2em;"> | |||
| '''Statements of principle''' | |||
| *] are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of ], such as ], ], ], ], or ]. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the ] and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ''ad nauseum''. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others. | |||
| *The ] prohibits editors from ] an article more than three times in any 24-hour period, except in cases of ]. | |||
| *This rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique. | |||
| *The rule applies only to individuals, not groups. | |||
| *The term "]" as used in ] is intended to include both ''absolute'' reverts (where versions differ not at all) as well as ''de facto'' reverts (where versions are only very slightly different). Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again is in bad faith and against ]. | |||
| *] and anonymous editor accounts may not be used to evade the three-revert rule. | |||
| *It is expected that editors, when ], will provide an explanation for doing so in the ]. | |||
| '''Previous penalties relating to principle''' | |||
| *In cases of edit-warring, ''revert limitations'' are applied in which reverting is restricted and violators can be blocked for specified periods. | |||
| ; Cases involving this principle | |||
| *''']''' | |||
| *''']''' | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Added section to further explain the way ] is enforced/interpreted by the Arbcom. ] 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The Arbitration Committee refers to policy, not vice versa. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a dispute over interpretations of how WP:3RR should be applied, the committee makes the final interpretation. | |||
| The precedents further explain the policy. ] 02:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Jayjg. If we include ArbCom decisions inside policies, and then ArbCom uses the policies in its decisions, we get into a circular argument, which is logically flawed. When Congress makes laws, it doesn't cite court cases - court cases cite Congress. The same should hold here. ] 02:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::We can certainly benefit from their wisdom though. Not sure about the specifics of this case though, have not looked. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::What we can benefit from is their turns of phrase and eloquent expression. The ArbCom is regularly very adept at expressing policies in good ways, and we should certainly update the policy pages if the expression of the policy can be improved. But we mustn't forget that the ArbCom doesn't make policy. | |||
| :::Note that the policy as it is currently worded covers pretty much everything you've listed there. It doesn't list all of the types of dispute resolution, rather it links to ]. Really all that's there that isn't in the policy is the recommendation to use edit summaries when reverting. --] (]) 07:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It's like a judge in the US making a ruling and citing a precedent judgment in a similar case. For example one of the cases clarified that whether the revert is full or partial if it involves information in an edit war it counts toward this policy. ] 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Precedents can be broad or narrow, and it's not up to you to decide "case law" in this matter; rather, the Arbitration Committee will decide which precedents are relevant and which are not. By the way, when judges cite previous rulings, they do just that; however, legislators don't then go and change the law based on the legal rulings, or citing them. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> I noticed that you devoted no space in your reply to explain why it would be a bad idea to show the cases I mentioned. I just posted the disputed section on this talk page and I think I understand why you don't want it out there:<blockquote>*''']'''</blockquote> Is this why you are against posting the precendents? ] 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The information is relevant and useful. Perhaps it can be incorporated in a fashion better than just tacking it on the end though. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 03:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I agree, but I want to find out if ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> is embarrassed or uncomfortable with his case being mentioned. (I think the bullet points should go in either way, but the cases can be probably be skipped. ] 03:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :ArbCom precedents may be useful for Talk page discussion, but in general they should not be relied upon or referenced inside policy pages. As mentioned above, ArbCom interpret policies to reach their decisions, so we cannot reference them inside the actual policies, or we'll have circular arguments. If you have some specific change you'd like to propose, you can use any rationale you want, including ArbCom precedents, to justify it, but the ArbCom precedents don't belong in the policy itself, and their 'principles' should be considered on an individual basis. ] 12:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Exactly so. As I said before, legislators don't go about making laws referring to the previous decisions of judges. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Respectfully, I disagree with the assertion that they do not belong in the article. Would anyone mind if I posted a question about this to the ] to resolve this? ] 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Go ahead. Remember that it is the community that ultimately decides what goes into policies, but ArbCom is certainly part of the community. ] 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have asked for their advice, here is a link to the post:]. I fully understand that this is a consensus run community, however I have difficulty reconciling saving arbcom decisions if they are irrelevant. ] 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Anynobody, you are incorrect in concluding that ArbCom decisions are 'irrelevant'. They are, in fact, very relevant and most important, and they can and should help us in shaping our policies and guidelines. But the proper place for their use is on the Talk page, where they can be considered and discussed by the community, as an important (but not exclusive) input into the community's consensus. It that consensus which goes into the policy. ] 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not saying they are irrelevant, I think they are most relevant which is why I'm trying to get them included in the policy page as further explanation. ] 03:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Before you add precedents to this page, it might be worth pointing out that the Arbitration committee is not a court of law, and does not set precedents. They specifically reserve the right to contradict themselves in later decisions, if it turns out their earlier ideas were wrong. Just thought you'd like to know that ;-) --] 03:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, and that's one more reason why policies and guidelines should be able to stand on their own legs. ] 03:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm also not saying they are set in stone, no two situations are identical of course. However, the decisions give guidance on questions like "what exactly is a revert?". ] 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :ArbCom decisions are a most valuable input into our own decision making process. But their use should be on the Talk page, as one more input for our discussion. The policy page should reflect our consensus and other relevant policies, not references to ArbCom decisions. ] 03:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps an example of what I mean would explain my intentions better, ] states: | |||
| <blockquote style="border: 1px solid blue; padding: 2em;"> | |||
| A ], in this context, means undoing, ''in whole or in part'', the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, undoing ] (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing ] (sometimes called "]"), or recreating a page. | |||
| An editor does not have to perform ''the same'' revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted. | |||
| Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ;Question: "Do minor changes count as a revert done through the history page?" This question is not addressed above, but the arbcom said that: | |||
| <blockquote style="border: 1px solid blue; padding: 2em;"> | |||
| The term "]" as used in ] is intended to include both ''absolute'' reverts (where versions differ not at all) as well as ''de facto'' reverts (where versions are only very slightly different). Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again is in bad faith and against ]. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ;Answer: Based on what the committee said above, a revert can be full or partial to count toward the ] policy. ] 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am copying my response from ], but we really should keep this in one place: | |||
| ::Using ArbCom's decisions and interpretations as an input to productive Talk page discussions, and to help tighten or clarify the policies, is highly encouraged. But it should not be the sole input, nor should ArbCom decisions be quoted or referred to from the policy itself. ] 23:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editing and the 3RR rule == | |||
| I've got a highly disruptive user who keeps insisting on moving an infobox from the top of a page to the bottom of a page, Can I take it that I am protected from the 3RR rule if I revert such an edit. | |||
| The page in question is ] | |||
| ] 13:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no excuse for violating 3RR except when dealing with persistent vandalism. --] 14:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : It seems fairly clear that this is a dispute simply about where the box should go. This is definitely not protected from 3RR. Calling SA "highly disruptive" is not promising for peace and harmony - try to be more neutral. Meanwhile, the best procedure would be to try to establish the policy re box positions - if the is one - via the talk page ] 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Attempting to clarify 3RR with a hypothetical == | |||
| These questions are based on a hypothetical. Any similarity to existing users or Misplaced Pages content is unintentional. The fake article in question is "Kinessar theory" which is a minority viewpoint that has been discredited, but is still notable for a WP article (compare "Flat Earth"). | |||
| Consider the following hypothetical edit history (earliest edit at bottom): | |||
| <pre> | |||
| * Echo5 (Talk|) ( Revert: Alice, you are in violation of 3RR, stop now ) | |||
| * Alice (Talk|) ( re-add: the entire *article* is about the minority view!) | |||
| * Delta4ce (Talk|) ( Revert: Undue Weight; eyanthon is minority view ) | |||
| * Alice (Talk|) ( re-add w/NYT wording: "the first sporenol of kinessar theory was eyanthon" ) | |||
| * Charlie33 (Talk|) ( Revert: POV; NYTimes says nothing about "widely-favored" ) | |||
| * Alice (Talk|) ( re-add with alternate cite to NYTimes ) | |||
| * Baker22 (Talk|) ( Revert: delete POV pushing with blog as unreliable source see ) | |||
| * Alice (Talk|) ( re-add with cite to FooBlog ) | |||
| * Baker22 (Talk|) ( Revert: weasel worded POV pushing in violation of ) | |||
| * Alice (Talk|) ( added "eyanthon was the most widely-favored sporenol of kinessar theory" ) | |||
| </pre> | |||
| '''Note:''' Under this hypothetical, assume the issue has yet to be addressed on the talk page (making the matter of "pre-existing consensus" ambiguous); assume that Alice has made each change in a good-faith effort to directly remedy the problems mentioned in the edit-histories; assume that Alice is the only one who is on-record on the discussion page; assume all Alice has to go on is the edit summaries of the reverting editors. | |||
| '''Question:''' Has Alice violated 3RR? If so, is a block justified? Comments and feedback welcome. ] 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Assuming the same material has been added each time, it seems plain that Alice has violated 3RR; so much so that its not clear why you've brought this up ] 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''@]''' Clarification: each edit she does is a direct attempt to correct the deficiencies stated in the edit summaries.<ref>1) First time she adds content ; 2) next she adds a cite (after someone complains WP:OR); 3) next she substitutes with a more authoritative cite ; 4) next she rewords the content to exactly match the cite ; 5) next she re-adds the contribution from (4) after disputing an unsubstantiated claim of "Undue Weight".</ref> Assuming you still hold to your "yes" after my clarification, What about the second part of my question? ] 16:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Ah, my mistake. If each time the revert is "text string (ref)" but the ref varies each time, then each one is a partial revert: changing the ref each time doesn't save you ] 16:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Ok, so then your answer is yes to "3RR violation" and yes to "block is justified"<ref name="clar">If I am misinterpreting, please feel free to clarify.</ref> Duly noted. More comments from others welcome. ] 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yes, unless there are Special Circumstances. I'm curious what you are referring to really, though ] 19:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The hypothetical pretty much says it all. As far as my own opinion, it seems rather ''odd'' (to say the least) that someone should be blocked from WP for adding a cite to content that was previously removed for not having a cite, or for adding a more authoritative cite to content that was previously removed for not having a reliable source. This is why I asked for clarification. ] 21:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like a violation to me, any action that undoes another editors edit is a revert. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, essentially, even if an editor removes content on the grounds that it is uncited original research, a respondent is not entitled to demonstrate that the assertion "uncited" is incorrect by providing a citation; at least, not if they are close to the 3RR limitation and wish to avoid being blocked for addressing the claim and improving a percieved deficiency. What then is the purpose of providing edit summaries when removing other's contributions at all? ] 01:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| == Clarification added to exemptions section == | |||
| I have a clarification to the exemptions section, which makes it clear that users reverting in their own userspace are not exempt from the removal of copyvios, libel, etc. If someone can phrase it more clearly than I did please go ahead, but reverting me would make no sense as this is already common practice. (And policy should ideally codify common practice.) ] ] 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Makes sense to me. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Dreftymac, I see you have reverted this asking for an explanation on the talk page. Which part did you not understand? <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Clarify: as the original contributor noted ''if someone can phrase it more clearly'' ... I agree with him that this is a relevant consideration, and believe the ambiguity of the added wording not only merited consideration, but merited removal pending the precise "more clear" phrasing. ] 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::? ] ] 01:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The point I was addressing is relatively minor. I sense a disturbance in the force, so I will dissipate it and get back to you in a sec, thanks. ] 02:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Follow-up:''' Just to note, I'm pretty sure the intent of the original contribution was clear to anyone following along here, and it's probably safe to assert the intent was entirely consistent with the existing policy, and therefore entirely uncontroversial. The relatively minor issue was that of ''phrasing'' (as the original contrubitor indicated of his own initiative, and I agreed). | |||
| ::Although the issue in isolation is minor, I think the "cognitive discomfort" caused by the newly-added phrasing was a result of the incremental progress of the "Exceptions" section itself. We all have a justifiable reluctance in making pro-forma changes to WP policy, especially when such changes might mistakenly be interpreted as an attempt to change the substantive meaning of the policy, rather than merely improve its clarity. | |||
| ::Consequently, I have made a change that, I too, believe is consistent with the substance of the existing policy, and consistent with the intent of the previous contribution, but also attempts to address the "cognitive dissonance" that naturally results when attempting to draft (and read) an exception to an exception to the prohibition against tendentious reversion. My main concern was simply for new users who may come to this policy page with "fresh eyes". | |||
| ::To demonstrate good faith, and a full recognition of the appropriateness of the original contributor's intent, I have <s>User:Dreftymac/Scratchpad002|edited the changes in my own user space</s>, for review by any and all interested parties, prior to proposing they be added to the policy page. | |||
| ::See <s>User:Dreftymac/Scratchpad002|here</s>. Regards. ] 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Update:''' struck out links as they are no longer available externally, and instead are now integrated into the policy text itself. ] 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The "Exceptions" section was significantly consolidated in my rewrite of this page in January this year, see for the diff and for the version prior. The current version is thus dramatically less verbose, with perhaps a loss of subtlety as a small tradeoff. I wonder whether it's really necessary to mention userspace explicitly at all, and have these problems of expression, given that reverting one's own actions doesn't really count as reverting. --] (]) 06:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The consolidation and rewrite ''absolutely'' represent an improvement. It's good to have that reminder for additional context. In any event, unless preferences and opinions suggest the contrary, some additional minor clarifications to the consolidated section seem appropriate. Please review the upcoming edit to the article that should reasonably clarify the section, while still retaining the caveat about user space edits. This is intended to be entirely consistent with existing policy, as well as the purpose of ]'s original modification. Thanks. ] 12:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Follow-up:''' I've incorporated the proposed change to the main policy page. The rough draft is now deleted from my user space. Comments and feedback of course still welcome. ] 21:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==3RR too vague== | |||
| I have a number of problems with 3RR. The first is that I don't think it should count as a revert at all if you are removing '''unsourced material''' from a page. Other policies state that removing of unsourced material is not only allowed, but encouraged, but 3RR as it stands gives editors no support for making such removals. | |||
| Secondly, I think there's a case to be made that material that is added which is clearly in violation of policy should also be subject to removal without triggering 3RR. For example, stuff that is sourced to places that clearly violate ]. | |||
| The onus should be on the person adding material to come up with reliable sources, and if he cannot do so, anyone should be able to remove his edits without violating 3RR, while the person attempting to add such material will himself violate 3RR by continuing to add it. | |||
| Thirdly, it seems to me there should be more exceptions to 3RR. For example, as the page stands, even fixing a spelling mistake could be construed as a 'revert' and get you a ban. I'm also inclined to agree with an earlier user that reverting material which was added more than 24 hours ago should not be subject to 3RR, for the simple reason that 3RR is there to stop edit warring and it can scarcely be called edit warring when you are reverting something that is more than 24 hours old. ] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : None of this sounds like a good idea. The usual counter argument applies: if what you are doing by reverting is clearly sensible, then you should have no problem finding someone else to do it, rather than breaking 3RR yourself ] 08:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I edit pages relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. If you think the system as it stands works fine, you should try editing these same pages sometime. There are often several editors on both sides revert warring at the same time. | |||
| ::What I am arguing for is a clarification of the 3RR rule to make for ''less'' edit warring. There is no reason whatever I can see why it should be considered a revert to remove unsourced material. Nor should it be a problem to remove material referenced to clearly invalid sources. Clarifying these matters at least would help somewhat in preventing unnecessary edit wars, and it would also help maintain article quality. ] 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The three revert rule is intended to prevent ], and overly literal intepretations of the words here are not useful if they ignore this. To take your spelling example, merely correcting spelling mistakes is not edit warring, though a dispute about spelling which involved users reverting each other would be edit warring. --] (]) 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes but you could be blocked just for doing some rephrasing or improvement of someone else's work who is not involved in the edit war at all. That's crazy. Surely 3RR can be a little better refined than it currently is. ] 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was just thinking there should be less exceptions. There are other means of resolution than just reverting again. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with HBC and William. It doesn't matter if one side ''thinks'' they have a good reason, communication about it is still necessary, or it just leads to an escalation of the conflict. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And what happens when one or more parties simply keep adding unsourced or badly sourced material? What if one party simply doesn't edit in good faith? I edit on the Israel-Palestine pages where emotions run hot, and anyone who has edited these pages regularly can tell you about the abuse and the gaming that goes on. There needs to be a clearer standard so that responsible editors are not penalized for removing irresponsible edits. ] 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If they keep doing it then it is a 3RR violation. Problem solved, unless you are the only person reverting the guy. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, unfortunately it's not "problem solved". If someone adds some unsourced material, and you revert and then get into an edit war, guess who violates 3RR first? The one who removed the unsourced edit in the first place. This means the responsible editor gets penalized, while the irresponsible editor gets his way. | |||
| :::The irresponsible editor can then run to page protection to get his version of the page "frozen" for a week because of the "edit war". It's this kind of gaming that drives good editors away from Wiki and leaves the bad ones in charge, I've seen this sort of thing happen numerous times. ] 15:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hmm. The fact tags seem appropriate for unsourced material, so I'm not sure why that should be deleted. If absolutely ''no'' sources can be found regarding that particular line, then it would be appropriate to delete. | |||
| I'd also like to point out that there is very rarely a "clear" violation of ]. The reliable source policy is (rightly so), quite vague. ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Policy says that unsourced material can be deleted at any time. But that is not reflected in 3RR. I'm just arguing for some consistency. If it's legitimate to delete unsourced material at any time, then such deletions should not count toward 3RR. ] 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::To answer your question: if someone persistently posts unsourced material, it becomes a different kind of problem. After discussing the issue with them, move on to warning them, and then bring their behavior issue to some wider forum. Ultimately, it will be dealt with properly. The reason endless reverts are a bad way to do this is that (1) you can't fight this kind of fight all by yourself anyway, and (2) if the other party ''can'' be reasoned with, they will need to see that other independent users don't agree with them, which means bringing the issue to a wider venue, and (3) with continuing reverts, it's hard for others to edit the article and in the meantime, the version posted keeps flip-flopping. The 3RR is there to make sure you pursue a more useful way of resolving the problem, namely, ask for outside input from admins or otherwise. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem is that other means can often be very awkward and time consuming, and meanwhile you have a substandard page which lowers the quality of the project as a whole. If editors knew they couldn't win a 3RR war just by continually adding their unsourced edits, they would be less likely to engage in such wars in the first place, which would mean less edit wars and flip-flopping, not more. ] 16:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You are describing a situation ''indistinguishable'' from most good-faith edit conflicts: User A thinks they are right and policy backs them up, and so does User B. They get into a revert war. The 3RR is there so that the revert war doesn't get too bad. The proper response for those two users, if they can't work it out directly by discussing with each other, is to get outside input so ] can be found. That's a ''good'' way to resolve the conflict. Another way to resolve the conflict would be for an admin to come in and make an immediate judgement about who's following policy and who isn't, and declare a winner. That's a ''bad'' way: it doesn't resolve anything, it leads to hurt feelings on the part of the losing side (who will probably feel their loss is arbitrary), it doesn't make any process towards a resolution, it's just a temporary fix. Getting outside input or intervention may be "awkward" and "time consuming" but it is the '''only''' way conflicts can really get resolved when there's a deep, good-faith disagreement. So, no, thinking you are right about policy (which is, of course, indistinguishable from ''being'' right about policy to the person who thinks so) should ''not'' give you license to revert freely, or else revert wars would break out all over the place. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec)Well said. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''@Gatoclass''': You've expressed your concerns and others have addressed the merits and alternatives. Although I myself withhold comment on the merits of your position, a bit of review is in order: | |||
| # under the current terms of this policy, removal of unsourced controversial claims regarding living persons is expressly permitted, you seem to be claiming that is not enough; | |||
| # you've asserted issues with wording in other policies and guidelines, but have not asserted why ''this'' policy must be changed as the only means of addressing the matter; | |||
| # you've asserted "akwardness" of other remedies, but given no rationale for why your proposal is the only way to minimize this akwardness, or why this "akwardness" is unduly restricting; and | |||
| # you've not addressed why adding <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{dubious}}</nowiki> tags represents an inadequate solution to the underlying problems you pose: (i) retention of good editors, (ii) addressing article deficiencies without exceeding a revert limit, (iii) preventing "flip-flopping", (iv) maintaining consistency between the different policies and guidelines. | |||
| :Because of the scope of the problems you pose, if you really feel strongly about this, one might suggest that your issue extends beyond this specific policy page, and would be better suited for a ]. If your primary purpose is to focus ''exclusively'' on 3RR as a policy, one might be more inclined to view this purpose more favorably if you can show you've made a concerted and dilligent attempt to exhaust the full range of other options that are more readily available. ] 17:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''under the current terms of this policy, removal of unsourced controversial claims regarding living persons is expressly permitted, you seem to be claiming that is not enough - Drefymac'' | |||
| ::Yes, exactly. Have there been any problems about the stricter 3RR policy in relation to WP:BLP? Apparently not. So why restrict this particular 3RR exception only to BLP's? | |||
| ::Just a reminder of what other policy and guideline pages say about the matter. ] - ''Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and '''removed at any time.''''' ] - ''Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, '''or it may be removed.''''' ] - ''Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, '''or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.''''' | |||
| ::That is, we have three separate policy or guideline pages explicity stating that unsourced material may be removed. We even have a quote from Wales on WP:V which explicitly states the following:''There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. '''It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information''', but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.'' | |||
| ::So what exactly is the big deal about reflecting these policies in 3RR? It apparently works fine already for BLP's, and it's only making 3RR consistent with other Wiki policies. And it seems to me it would be only be providing support to responsible editors who are trying to remove substandard material. ] 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :To answer you further would involve repetition. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Did someone address why we make an exception for BLP but can't for this rule? My concern would be that any such exception could be abused. A person says disruptively "you haven't provided a reliable source for that," and the other responds "I have too," and then the person trying to exclude information thinks he's entitled to keep deleting ad nauseum. Unfortunately almost all rules can be used for good or for disruption. Another tension here is the assumption/belief of many admins that people should not edit war (by which they mean reverting any good faith edit), ever, at all. Thus, the chess match you're describing isn't supposed to happen. I know that's not really a satisfactory answer in the Middle East section where edit warring continues so prevalently, but I think it's what you're up against. ] 18:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've found that a good guideline is the so-called "1RR". Revert once, if it's restored, discuss it on the page. It works well in 80%+ of cases. ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 22:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That can also be found at ] ] 12:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As a general comment in this discussion, note that wikipedia policy works on most of our over 1M pages, but fails on some controversial pages (in the order of 1-3Kpages). It may well be that the 3RR fails to work in some circumstances. If some people have the time to devise a ruleset for controversial pages, that might be interesting. --] 14:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting proposal, thank you. In my short experience here, I have seen controversial pages go through a number of edits, with two or more editors making contributions, followed by a revert to a version which was days old. These leap-backward reverts often result in the loss of spelling and grammar corrections which were not involved in the controversy. I'd have to think about how to word it, but I would suggest/support wording which discouraged using UNDO to go back beyond a single editor's changes in a particular section. Clearly this could be abused by tag-team editing, however I'm suggesting 'discouraging' the practice, not proscribing it. | |||
| :I don't believe that the reverting editors intend to lose the non-contentious edits, but hasty reverts result in just that. If the material needs to be reverted, in most cases it can be manually re-inserted which would at least encourage the editor to look at what was changed between the version (s)he wants and the latest version of the text. | |||
| :I am not suggesting a change that prohibits reverting, only that some wording could be added which discourages blind-UNDO to older versions, rather than reverting by working-forward. UNDO to the most recently old version, is fine. UNDO to something 4 versions old, can be counter-productive and does not seem to be in keeping with the wiki-spirit of editing. | |||
| :One specific case comes to mind, where an editor returned to an article, and did 4 hasty reverts. This particular editor was willing to look at their edits, gratiously conceeded that they had been hasty, and then went back and corrected their edits. However, not all such conflicts are so easily resolved and on many occasions good work is lost (or must be re-added) by hasty reverting. ] 15:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question regarding reversions == | |||
| If an editor has been blocked for breaking the 3RR, and then reverts the same content again after the block is lifted, is that one subsequent reversion grounds for a later block or not, given the fact of the previous block for the same behavior? I think this is a rational question, and it is one that I cannot find directly answered in the content of the page. ] 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : When I was doing 3RR, my rule was to stick fairly precisely to the letter of the rules. If you made 4R in 24h, you got blocked, but maybe not for the full 24h. If you *were* blocked for 24h, then the first revert after that couldn't be 3RR, because it would be the first in that 24h time frame. But if you were blocked for 8h, then immeadiately came back and reverted, you could well be blocked if that made another group of 4 edits in 24h. In other words, the 3RR block did not "clear" the previous reverts. None of this, of course, affects the possibility of being blocked on the grounds of edit warring ] 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the 4th reversion were within 24 hours of "eligibility", not couting the time when the editor was blocked? ] 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Blocked time counts. Its always done on real, wallclock time ] 21:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You guys may find this take interesting, an argument that if a 3RR report is dismissed, it "strikes off" reverts that have happened and the editor can continue reverting and counting at 1 again. --] 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Users can be blocked for ] whether or not they have 4 reverts, when such a block is appropriate. ] · <small>]</small> 01:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Policy enforcement == | |||
| Is "policy enforcement" other than the specific ones listed on this page an exemption from 3RR enforcement? Example ], it's a situation where there wasn't copyright violation and there was a disagreement over whether content violated ]. Editor was initially blocked but later unblocked per . Is it OK for editors to keep reverting if it's "policy enforcement"? And if so, does it apply to all editors or just admins? --] 12:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I would say, no, it's not okay. So that unblocking might have been a bit ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 12:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Query== | |||
| Can you tell me please how you know if someone reports you for 3RR, or for that matter any ANI or RfC. ] 09:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] rules of etiquite suggest that anyone who reports you should notify you. You can also monitor the admin boards, however they tend to scroll rapidly and you'd have to check them regularly to be sure. ] 11:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Personal opinion:'' Ideally, the person who reported you (or someone else) should have first taken reasonble efforts to notify you in advance that your actions appeared to constitute "edit warring" ... unless the circumstances were exceptional or there were other reasons to suspect that such notification would not have been necessary or productive. ] 14:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Established users (i.e. not newbies) ''should know'' about 3RR and should be mindful of not editwarring. ] <small>]</small> 19:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The issue is not simply "newby vs established" ... the issue is there are dramatically different interpretations of what ''constitutes'' edit warring to begin with. This very discussion page presents a wide range of practical interpretations of what differentiates "edit warring" from "good faith attempts to find consensus, address article deficiencies and make constructive contributions". Simplistic distinctions between "newby and established" simply do not capture the full nuance and complexity of many cases that require review under this policy. ] 19:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What I mean, Dreftymac, that an established user ''should know'' what editwarring is and that reverting more than 3 times in 24hrs is not acceptable. I do not see any fine lines here or differences of interpretations, just simply: '''do not editwar''. If you do, you may lose your editing privileges temporarily. I newbie may no know that, and that is the reason the admins monitoring the noticeboard will not block a newbie unless the user was informed of this policy. ] <small>]</small> 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''I do not see any fine lines here or differences of interpretations'' ... yes, ], and respectfully, that is precisely my point. A lot of people just assume that "edit warring" and "reverting" are intuitively obvious terms with blatantly unambiguous application in all cases. In the ''easy'' cases, they may be clear. The problem is, not every case is an "easy case". Even if the "close call" cases are few, few does not equal "non-existent". | |||
| :::::For example, is it "warring" to re-add content with a citation if someone prevously removed it, claiming it lacked a cite? Some might say: "yes it's a revert" ''but'' "no it's not warring, but instead an attempt at resolution", whereas ]. Others may make a determination based on the track record of the individual contributor. Still others may consider other factors. The point is, the notion of "obviousness" (in the abstract) seems like a house of cards when it comes time to apply specific consequences to specific actions. | |||
| :::::The bottom line, it would seem useful to give people advance notice of potentially adverse outcomes, and not refrain from doing so, simply because we may think something "should be obvious". That about sums it up for me. ] 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == reverted edit by Moreschi == | |||
| ], I reverted your last edit marked with the edit summary "... this is slightly silly ..." | |||
| The modification you made to the policy presented (IMO) a potential for unduly mischaracterizing the risks that individual contributors face in 3RR situations. Indeed, a good faith reading of this very discussion page indicates the matter is not silly at all. Substantial advanced notice should be given whenever and wherever possible, to provide contributors with a realistic depiction of the potential problems associated with this type of situation. ] 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, as ] just illustrated by example, you should 'discuss' on the talk page after you revert, and not wait until after your self-revert due to 4RR. If you are applying ] after someone was bold, then you would explain why you reverted, and not wait for them to ask. ] 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Help Requested == | |||
| I'm glad I found this page. Baseball Bugs has been causing some major problems. I am relatively new here and he's called me a sock and been reverting edits I've made. The two problems are on the shoeless joe jackson page and the will ferrell page. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. ] | |||
| *The sockpuppet question was raised by an admin on ] and there is further discussion on ] about the suspicious apparent connections between these two user IDs (and others). ] 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Until the case is resolved, it would be improper to assume bad faith and act on that assumption. Additionally, socks (or not) aren't generally relevant to the 3RR rule. If the information being added is from a ] and is ] to the article, and is ], reverting it would not be recommended. If the information does not meet Misplaced Pages standards, and someone continues to insert it, then there are methods to handle that, other than repeatedly reverting them. | |||
| ::If you need an uninvolved 3rd party to get involved, you're welcome to post a note on my talkpage. I'll be glad to help out if I can. ] 17:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The complaint against Tecmobowl (as well as El redactor) on the ] page has primarily to do with his/their continued insistence on posting his/their personal baseball card sales website as an external link. Another admin has already remarked that it's a fansite and should be kept out. That subject is the key to the sockpuppet investigation. Regarding the ] birthdate citation, it's not that important, it's just a symptom of Tecmobowl and/or El redactor's general insistence that his/their way of doing things is the only way to do things, which has aroused the ire of various editors. The original editor explained his reasoning for the citation, so I restored it. If El redactor still don't like the citation, he should discuss it with that editor directly. ] 18:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As I said above, none of that really relates to 3RR. There are other venues of dispute resolution which should be pursued. ], ], ], ] are some of them. | |||
| :Though it may not be a ], I would disagree that the single link to the Joe Jackson page is spam. There is no advertising on the page, and it does seem to contain useful information. Is there some reason you doubt the facts on the page? ] can always apply to things which are outside the guidelines or rules. Again, it would be better to continue this conversation on the ]. ] 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This isn't the place for this discussion: this is for discussion about the 3RR rule. Put 3RR reports on ] and discuss possible ones there. Not here ] 18:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| El redactor has now been permanently blocked for being a sockpuppet of Tecmobowl during Tecmobowl's block. To whom it may concern: You may delete this section from this talk page as you see fit. ] 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Recommended additional exception == | |||
| Over the last 1.5 years, I've been conducting removal of fair use images from places outside of the main article namespace per ] item #9. The policy has been repeatedly upheld and no exceptions to it have been permitted for userspace or templates, where these removals most often happen. Considerable debate has been conducted previously regarding such use on portals and to a lesser extent on wikiprojects, and even considerable debate regarding the main Misplaced Pages page. The outcome of all debates on this subject has been that item #9 has been upheld in every case to mean no fair use display on any pages other than actual articles. | |||
| Over the last 1.5 years, I've made roughly 5000 such removals. Recently, ] has been running a bot called ] that has been conducting thousands upon thousands of these removals in a considerably smaller time span. At times during my removals and in helping to support Gnome bot, some users have tried engaging in revert wars to prevent application of this policy. A case example is a minor revert war that erupted today regarding a fair use image on a wikiproject (see history actions of 19/20 June 2007). | |||
| Since every objection to the application of this policy has been rejected and the policy upheld in every case, and since it is commonly the case that willful violations of this policy are considered vandalism, I'd like to add an exception to the 3RR policy that would say: | |||
| * reverts to remove fair use tagged imagery from non-mainspace pages (see ] item #9) provided that the editor removing such imagery contacts the editors reverting in opposition. | |||
| Comments? If no objections, I'll add this in a week's time. --] 13:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I think this is a no-brainer, and support it completely. ] 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Yup. Let's close the door to gaming the system; seems to me this is a special case of copyright violation, so should be appended to the second bullet. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Request:''' This makes sense, but, respectfully, this seems redundant. Can you please explain why your proposal is not already adequately addressed by the following (already stated in the policy exceptions): | |||
| * reverts to remove clear copyright violations or clearly libelous material; | |||
| * reverts done by a user within his or her own user space, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations | |||
| The proposal makes sense, but it seems to be already supported by the current language of the policy. The language of this section can become confusing to inexperienced contributors, so additional care is called for here. At very least, the text of the proposed addition should be re-written for clarity. ] 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Counter-proposal:''' It also seems appropriate (if clarification consistent with this proposal turns out to be warranted) to simply add this proposal as a footnote to the already-included mention of copyright violation, as a case-in-point example. ] 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *The fair use violations in this case are a matter of policy, not necessarily of copyright. Thus, the clarification is needed. People have and do dispute that such use is a copyright issue. This clarifies the matter, and makes it clear that reverting re-insertion of fair use images repeatedly is not a 3RR violation if the person conducting the removals has attempted to discuss the issue with and educate the editor in question. --] 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :* reverts to remove clear copyright violations or clearly libelous material or other material contrary to policy; | |||
| :* reverts done by a user within his or her own user space, provided that such reverts do not restore any of the above | |||
| ::] 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, ], I think you make a good point, there is sufficient ambiguity here to justify a clarification. | |||
| :::Please, however, work on a wording that you think clearly and concisely conveys this clarification. It takes considerable effort to keep the "Exceptions" section from getting too confusing and unreadable for inexperienced users. The fewer excuses people have for not carefully reading this policy in advance ... the better. I'll be happy to try and help if needed. ] 15:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I'm not averse to Agathoclea's suggested addition. I do think my original wording is concise and to the point. We're getting too many edit wars from this. --] 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Counter-proposal:''' Here's an alternate that should be both useful for the "edit war" problem you've expressed, as well as still readable to the "general audience" | |||
| :(please see <s>]</s> for the entire context). ] 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*The problem with that wording is no suggestion of discussing the matter with the user. Many users are completely uneducated about this issue and revert on sight, thinking it's vandalism. Continued removals without discussion is not conducive to resolution. I know this is discussed elsewhere on 3RR, but I think it's especially important in this case, because it's a little understood policy. --] 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Alternative:''' * # reverts to remove non-free content that has been appropriately discussed and identified as such by Misplaced Pages contributors; (please note also that the text will have direct links to the relevant policies, as well as a footnote referring to WP:NFCC). The links are included <s>]</s>. It's essentially the same thing you proposed with less in-line replication of content from other policies. ] 16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Update:''' Scratchpad proposal removed. This matter is hopefully resolved by ]'s simple modification to the policy wording here. HTH. ] 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I think the additional exception is reasonable, and have no particular opinion on the wording thereof. ] 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I the bit about copyvios to mention violations of the non-free content criteria too, it was always intended to cover that anyway. As to the issue of telling people first, well that's just good practice and should be done anytime someone seeks to rely on one of these exceptions to justify their reverting. --] (]) 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm all for it, provided the wording is made very clear as to what this applies to. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">18:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| == When reverting to different past versions, which edit is 3RR? == | |||
| Since reversion is "undoing, ''in whole or in part'', the actions of another editor or of other editors," when two editors are going back to different past versions of a page (or part of a page), which one must stop first to observe ]? For example see this: ] 13:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm no expert, but in such a case, what existed in the past shouldn't matter as far as 3RR. Each party is reverting the other. Now in terms of a discussion on Talk, and ultimate inclusion of the point, then if it was removed without good reason, one would be hard-pressed to defend keeping it out. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == exceptions section == | |||
| If you feel the need to add to the ] section, please discuss first. Otherwise this is destined to require its own separate page. Thank you. ] 17:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Unrelated edits == | |||
| Forgive me if this is already dealt with, but I've seen situations where editors are reluctant to revert edits that are clearly nonconsensus from outside IPs etc. for fear of traversing 3RR when there is a separate content dispute going on. The result is that an anti US editor, who would still normally revert an edit like "the US is a terrible country lacking in freedom", would let such an edit stand so as not to cross the line, even though it is clear that reverting an edit whose sentiments she might agree with is something to be commended. Are such issues left entirely to the judgement of the board administrators, or is a clarification of policy that would prevent such a situation feasible/desirable? Let me know, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Honestly? "The US is a terrible country lacking in freedom" is blatant vandalism, which is already an exception. Something more subtle and potentially usable would be a different story. If you're in such a situation, the best thing to do is, if you feel your revert should be an exception (and you know the difference between vandalism and edits you disagree with), note in your edit summary that you are reverting vandalism. Careful, though, while this would be just fine if the edit really is vandalism, it could be viewed even more unfavorably if the edit ''isn't'' vandalism. If you're not sure if something will be viewed by an arbitrary admin as vandalism or not, assume it's not vandalism: vandalism cases are really clear. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Well, I suppose my example could use some work, but the point that I was getting at was that the edit to be reverted would be something that the "other side" of the content dispute would surely want to be removed on content grounds, so that while you might be expected to "agree" with the view, your removing it would only be a demonstration of neutrality if anything. Now that there is a separate content dispute approaching 3RR, you might allow the edit to stay.....is there any way we could recognise such a case, or is it best left unwritten and subject to whoever is dealing with AN3 at the moment? <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 04:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The 3RR is a speed limit. It purposely doesn't apply to only one dispute at a time, because reverting on two or three or many different disputes at once is just as harmful as reverting a lot on a single dispute. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| I've got a question about if there is some type of exception to the 3 reverts in 24 hour rule if the reverting is done over the course of days. Because the article ] appears to be in a really slow, drawn out edit war (theres barely 2 edits a day) and would like to know if you can handle this like a normal 3RR violation (or if there is some special way of handling this). --]<sup>]•]</sup> 03:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :While 3RR applies to general edit warring as well as rapid reverts, it's best to direct the editors involved to discuss their differences on the article talk page. If the reverting continues, you might want to consider ]. --] 03:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Two more things, does it matter that the editors engaged in reverting each others edits are same two. <s>And if the page is to be protected should the article be reverted to the way it was before the war began.</s> Thanks. --]<sup>]•]</sup> 03:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::When a page is protected, it is always ]... meaning, the protecting admin will just protect the version that's there, unless it seriously violates policy (e.g. copyvio or something). If there's an edit war, protection is justified: doesn't matter if it's two users or ten. However, when it's just two users, there might be some hope of settling the issue via ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposal== | |||
| If one editor violates 3RR, other editors should not be bound by it in reverting him/her. Currently, anyone may prevail in any content dispute without consequence by blowing far past 3RR with an edit-warring anon: the time it takes to report 3RR and for the report to be responded to is too long relative to the time it takes to violate it (i.e. hardly any.)] 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Strongly disagree. The 3RR is a speed limit and shouldn't apply unevenly. I agree, it would be nice if 3RR violations were resolved faster. Remember not to be too overly concerned with the current state of the article. If the article is vandalized blatantly, go ahead and revert. If it's more subtle, but still clearly policy-violating, consider complaining about the behavior at ] instead of reverting: AIV is much faster than AN3. If it's just something you disagree with, let it stand until the 3RR report goes through. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Remember not to be too overly concerned with the current state of the article." | |||
| ::That's good advice, thank you. Similarly, your suggestion to take such matters to WP:AIV.] 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Equal treatment?== | |||
| What's this about having to treat 3RR violators 'equally'? I don't think that's a good point for enforcement. Does it means block lengths must be equal? That would be very poor, in some cases. I believe that admins should have full discretion here. ] 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it means that an established user's first 3RR offense should result in the same length of a block as a new user's first offense and similarly for their further offenses. ] 15:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've generally interpreted this as meaning make it fair based on each user's history (you might block the one with a long 3RR-related block log, while only warning the one who also violated but has never been blocked nor warned). It may be better to word it in a way that makes this clearer. ] ] 09:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've thought of it as an admonition to not excuse one party from their violation based on the merits of their change. I don't think it means that block durations have to be even. The text could maybe stand some editing there. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Persistent use of reverts (edit warring)== | |||
| I've noticed confusion surrounding the 3RR rule on many occasions and have seen many arguments about interpretation, particularly among relatively new WP users but certainly not limited to relatively new users. I'd like to recommend thinking about an additional behavioral standard that might apply specifically to edit warring, which might compliment the 3RR rule at some conceivable stage in the future. At present 3RR is the rule, and "No edit warring" is a byproduct, almost an afterthought that requires administrative discretion and interpretation of the circumstances. To the extent that this is the case, why not begin talking about officially calling it what it is rather than tacking it onto 3RR? ... ] 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question re: reverts == | |||
| I've been removing an external link at ] that I feel does not qualify under the EL policy. It is being repeatedly restored by the same editor, despite explanations. Having approached the 3RR limit today, I do not intend to go beyond that; I have advised the other editor of this, as well as cautioned them in an attempt to avoid a similar event. (This is not something that requires administrative intervention at this point, and my goal is to ensure that it stays that way.) That aside, does anyone here have suggestions as to an area on Misplaced Pages where editors can pose questions re: the suitability of content? That would be helpful - instead of reverting, I could just direct a question to that area, and then have a proper answer. (I don't care if I turn out to be right or wrong, I'd just like to know for sure either way.) Thoughts? --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There are at least three approaches you can take. First, you can post a note at ]; that's standard when editors disagree on an article. Second, you can post a note on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline, particularly appropriate if the issue is more related to a technical point than to article content. In this case, that would be ], I think. Third, you can make a general request for additional editors to get involved, assuming that ''only'' two editors are involved in this disagreement, by posting at ]. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == How ? == | |||
| How to inform (or warn ) someone that he/she has reached the ] ? ] (<sup>]</sup> - <sup>]</sup>) 07:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The standard warning can be found at ]; this is to be posted on the user talk page of the person who has reached (or even gone over, but without being previously warned) the 3RR limit. You don't really have to use the standard warning, but if you do use your own words, it's pretty much ''required'' that you provide a wikilink to ], because new editors aren't going to be able to find the policy without such a link. | |||
| :Also, once the warning is posted, don't worry if the user deletes it from his/her talk page; deletion is taken as acknowledgment that the posting has been ''read'', and of course the posting is still part of the history of the user talk page. (A user has an absolute right to delete postings from other editors from his/her user talk page, although this is a much misunderstood point.) | |||
| :And, finally, a user only needs to be warned once in his/her editing career - so if a valid 3RR warning (i.e., one linking to the policy) is already visible on the user talk page, ''don't'' post another one (some people would regard that as harassment). Similarly, if the user has been ''blocked'' once (or more) for a 3RR violation, it's absolutely unnecessary to post a (new) warning; he/she can be presumed to be quite familiar with the policy. | |||
| :P.S. You need to fix your signature - you shouldn't be using larger-than-normal font (which is what shows for me, at least: Windows XP, Firefox browser). -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanx boss . In fact , im planning to change my signature too. thanx ] (<sup>]</sup> - <sup>]</sup>) 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == User space? == | |||
| I changed "User space" to "User page and subpages" in one of the exceptions. My understanding is that people are generally not blocked for 3RR violations on their User page or subpages because those are kind of like "their pages." But this does not apply to the user talk page. I would not have taken "User space" to refer to the user talk page, but according to the link, it does. (I would have taken "User space" to refer to pages in the User: namespace). Anyway, so I changed it, to clarify. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Something I've noticed about the way some people handle the 3-Revert Rule == | |||
| First, although people will deny it, there seems to be a little loophole in this rule. When someone makes an edit (edit 1 by '''User One''') and it gets reverted by someone (revert 1 of '''User Two'''), '''User One''' has the upper hand in getting their way if they choose to ignore Misplaced Pages policy of going to the talk page to discuss compromise. Should '''User One''' be stubborn and revert the article back (revert 1 of '''User One''') and this is not appreciated by '''User two''' and they revert again (revert 2 of '''User Two'''), all '''User One''' has to do is revert 1 more time (revert 2 of '''User One''') and if '''User Two''' reverts again (revert 3 of User Two) he has reached his limit, and '''User One''' can now revert the article again (revert 3 of '''User One''') and get the article to reflect his edit. Both are now at there limit. However at this point since '''User One''' has broken Wiki policy about editing in good faith, if '''User Two''' is stubborn as well | |||
| and decides to revert again (revert 4 of '''User Two''') they then have broken the 3RR and '''User O''' then reports '''User Two'''. I call this '''WRANGLING''' (it should be a wiki term as far as I am concerned) If '''User Two''' is a conscious editor and does not revert the 4th time '''User One''' gets their way by default. It happens all the time and is apparently thought to be sanctioned by Misplaced Pages in general as there is no mention on this behavior on the 3RR page. This may or may not be a conscious behavior but has the same result. I know Admin is smart enough to see this when it does happen (they are not idiots) but it does create a lot of conflict and is the basic start to nearly all edit wars. Shouldn't this be added to the 3RR page? | |||
| Also shouldn't that '''first edit''' be official '''considered as a revert''' after the edit of the '''next user''' is then reversed against wiki policy on consensus by the '''first user'''. That would be a great way to stop this behavior. It allows '''User Two''' to warn '''User One''' that they are going against not only consensus but the 3RR themselves. It keeps a person from picking an edit fight as they will not be able to gain the upper hand in that manner. --] 12:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The technicalities of the rule don't matter that much. What you are describing is a revert war. I might only warn the users the first time around that they were edit warring and need to stop, but if they were to continue without technically breaking the 3RR, I would block them anyway. This kind of situation is somewhat routine. So your change wouldn't have much impact, but it does sound like it could encourage ] issues. ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What you just wrote is technically correct, and proves that Admin can see through a problem such as this-however it does not stop this from occurring or even answer to why it is not mentioned in the 3RR page. Many of the problems that Misplaced Pages is currently facing are interpretation issues of members pushing what they feel is the correct way that a policy should be interpreted, even when it flat goes against the written policy. More details should be added to this policy page to make it far more clear. | |||
| ::You can never stop a true vandal until they are blocked or banned, but explaining further will stop misinterpretation or a misguided user--] 23:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also you do not talk about what I brought up at all about intention of those revert wars. Many revert wars go unseen on pages where nothing is reported until someone gets past 3 reverts. You may be able to see through it when it does get reported and may even not block the Second User who has technically broken the 3RR, but that doesnt deter the war from beginning in the hope that that second user will stop at 3 reverts. The premise that someone else will make the change if it is important is not always true. This then encourages the editor to do it as a regular practice.--] 23:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR can harm productive editing == | |||
| There is a problem in the operation of 3RR. After nearly a year of blemish-free record (at least in this regard), I've suddenly been tripped up by it. Let me call myself a "productive editor". I was doing a lot of general work in one large article ], including new writing. The article has/had multiple problems, bad references, factual errors and a muddled layout. | |||
| I was suffering reverts, but refusing to edit-war. At the same time as moving things around and putting in references, I was writing in a whole new section to the article - this work was also suffering reverts. One of the latter was for alleged copyvio, one as "irrelevant", one appeared to be a mistake. And so I got caught out. I'd re-written my section almost completely (I think half the title is all that remains), but my offence is (or can be) still classified as a 3RR. The net result is horrible, and cannot be a good thing for the encyclopedia. The current system: | |||
| 1) Lends itself to collusion against a productive, working editor in the middle of doing a lot of work on a complex article. | |||
| 2) Is damaging to cooperation between editors. Even a true first offender such as myself wasn't entitled to a warning - or even to be told I faced a block! | |||
| 3) Encourages deceitful summaries, disguising the reasons for the edits being made. (eg copyvio, references problems, duplicate material etc). | |||
| 4) Is misleading - I didn't revert anyone, it was me that was reverted/blanked (3 times, leading me to re-write 3 times). | |||
| I once spotted another editor who I know to be productive get caught out in a similar fashion (except I couldn't follow the details of what had happened). It cannot be good for articles for it to happen. | |||
| I don't know what the answer is, other than to warn admins here of what can happen. Someone can be adding information to an article, and extensively re-writing it each time ..... a 3RR report in such cases is worthless. The blocking admin in my case has apparently volunteered that he approves my unblocking ........ but I think more people need to know. ] 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, it is not uncommon for otherwise productive contributors to get caught up as you've described. The best strategy is probably to try to involve more people and request feedback when you notice this type of circumstance arising. You may have to pull back a bit and restrict your contributions to the discussion page for a while. ] 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Chronic Fatigue== | |||
| user orangemarlin has reverted twice my edit within a matter of hours . without addressing my comments on discussion talk page, out of the blue within minutes another editor who has never contributed to the page reverts the third time and threatens me with 3rr ] with no attempt to address discussion page Anything I can do ] 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. I don't think {{User|Filll}} is a sockpuppet. ] | ] 06:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks for comments jfd this is a new area for me probably the wrong page! from what I can find, agree Fill not a sockpuppet, but seems to be an association of 'usual suspects' on Homeopathy talk page, so surrogate is probably better explanation. Still do not think it in spirit of Wiki to turm up at an article, revert an edit without discussion then declare an edit war and warn only one party, not a neutral or advisory role as it pretends. Will try his talk page for response ] 01:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Replacing citation needed tag with a source == | |||
| Does replacing {{tl|fact}} with a source count as a revert? If an editor has specifically requested replacing the tag with a source, which is what the tag requests, then can fulfilling that request count as undoing the "action" that made the request? I believe all would agree that the request implicitly includes removing the tag. Doesn't the "action" of the editor who placed the tag live on by the fact that the source was added when it otherwise might not have been? ←] 08:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The Gdansk Exception == | |||
| If anybody wants to bother reading ], the outcomes of that discussion are quite clear. In fact, it's one of the few instances in the history of the project that the community took matters into its own hands and settled a content dispute. As far as I'm aware those outcomes were never repudiated, and I know of at least one case where that exception was specifically (and successfully) invoked. This is an unusual exception, but it's quite wrong to dismiss it as "undiscussed craziness." Best, ] ] 15:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Frankly, that it's "discussed craziness" is probably far more disturbing. But if nobody else is interesting in keeping the 3RR viable for long, I'll be happy to drop it. Frankly, edit warring is already a blockable offence, and if anything this was just creating license to revert three times a day more than it was stopping anything. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 15:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR hurts Misplaced Pages == | |||
| ] please read and discuss this essay... I would love your feedback. --] 13:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I like it in principle, but in practice, counting reverts "per edit not per editor" would be really very hard. ←] 09:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would love it if you could illustrate your concern with an example in the essays talk...--] 09:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You have to understand that 3RR is really just an especially lenient one-revert rule. Reverting back and forth accomplishes nothing, whether once or twice or five times. — ] 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Speed limit == | |||
| I thought it might be good to make an analogy to a speed limit. They aren't always enforced, but they always ''can'' be. Doesn't matter why the admin chooses to enforce it in a specific instance, just that you broke the rule and they enforced it. And the fact that someone else was also revert warring at the time doesn't let you off the hook. — ] 16:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == What does "consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one" mean? == | == What does "consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one" mean? == | ||
Revision as of 15:24, 1 November 2007
 | Spoken Misplaced Pages | |||
| ||||
 Archives |
|---|
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
What does "consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one" mean?
If this is a rule that is going to be enforced on a very frequent basis, as it apparently is, then shouldn't it be as specific as possible to avoid ill-will against the enforcers? This part is abundantly and absurdly vague:
- "consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert"
Exactly how are people supposed to know how many uninterrupted changes they are allowed to make?
I have read that administrators are often accused of unfairness or misconduct, and that this is often upsetting to them. I respectfully submit that for allowing such a ridiculously vague rule to stand, and endorsing it by participating in its enforcement, such accusations and discomfort are not entirely undeserved.
Is there any objection to removing the word "often" from that phrase? Acct4 04:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why, have you seen someone blocked as if multiple consecutive reverts were not treated as one revert? I find it hard to believe that would happen. Mangojuice 05:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, I have no idea, but rules that are not unreasonably applied can still be unreasonably vague. If it has never happened then everyone will support removing "often". Acct4 06:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I support it; I just wanted to see if there was some actual example where someone found an exception. The way I figure it, we don't need to hedge that rule because (1) I can't think why we'd need to make an exception to it, and (2) we always have WP:IAR. Mangojuice 15:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's been a couple of days, I'm going to boldly delete that "often". 209.77.205.2 04:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Danger Will Robinson
3RR is in fact the 3 rules of robotics. We must therefore have this be speedied since it is a copyvio. Oh no, I'm about to forget my sig! SineBot Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.236.33 (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
BLP discussion regarding conflicting wording
Please note a new discussion on 3RR as it applies to BLP, over at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#3RR exclusion. Depending on the outcome of that discussion we may change the description of the BLP 3RR on this project page. Wikidemo 15:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Currently, this policy reads, regarding the BLP exception:
Reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (emphasis added)
- while the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy reads:
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced (or) relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability ... The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. (emphasis added)
- So the 3RR policy, as currently written, appears to be in conflict because it covers all unsourced/poorly sourced information (negative or positive), whereas WP:BLP limits the 3RR exception to negative/derogatory information.
- Opinions of other editors on how to make the two policies consistent would be appreciated. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Proposed addition
I wrote a crazy little proposal about a 5 revert rule, see Misplaced Pages:Don't violate consensus, concerning the case when a single editor is reverted by five different editors. I think it has some chance in reducing WikiStress, but on the other hand it is doubtful that adding more rules will help. I'm not going to defend that proposal, but I would appreciate, if some policy gurus here gave the idea some thought. I just think it might actually help in some extreme cases. --Merzul 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Paragraph that makes no sense
- Note that in the case of vandalism, blocking editors who have engaged in vandalism or protecting the page in question will often be better than reverting. Similarly, blocking or page protection will often be preferable in the case of repeated addition of copyrighted material.
Huh? If a page has been vandalized, how is blocking a user or protecting the page "better than reverting"? That may stop additional vandalism, but it won't get rid of the vandalism that's already there... you've still got to revert it – Gurch 09:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- What it means is that blocking or protecting is a better way to stop the problem than to merely revert. If I insert "merely" will that take care of it? Mangojuice 11:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
User talk pages
User:Taeedxy, The list of exceptions should explicitly list user talk pages in order to clarify that users should, within reason, be able to control what gets displayed on their own page. I see no difference between someone's user page and user talk page in this regard, and it became an issue of contention in a recent case at WP:3RR. Can you discuss why you took this out? Ronnotel 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It should remain out because editors will use it to Wikilawyer their right to control their user and talk page per this policy. On occasion clueful admins or experienced editors will ask an editor to remove edits to their talk and user page for the benefit of the project. If an editor refuses then on occasion it may need to be done despite their objection. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, how about adding a link to Misplaced Pages:Don't readd removed comments then? I've had WP:3RR cases where one user reported another because they kept removing hostile comments from their own talk page. Ronnotel 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"Mistake"
I'd like a clarification of the following situation. A user violates 3rr, and admits knowing about the policy. But it is claimed that he/she violated 3rr by "mistake". Should the user be blocked?
What if the user goes back to wholescale reverting after the 24-hour period in which he/she made reverts expires?
Such a situation happened here. While I'm not disputing the decision made by the admin (as a non-admin it is not plac to do that) I want further clarification for such a rule. When is it applied, when not? How do we decide if a user has made a mistake?Bless sins 23:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's fine to dispute decisions made by admins; it's more productive to do it politely, like this, than to rant on their talk page. Then you can point the admin to the discussion, and everyone can discuss what's going on.
- Here's my general interpretation of how 3RR is implemented. If the reverts were in the past, say a couple days earlier, then we generally let the issue drop, with just a note. If the user doesn't have a history of 3RR, and just got caught up in the moment, some admins are very generous about letting them off with just a note.
- If the reverts are very recent, the user realizes they made a mistake, and they revert their own last edit before being blocked, that is usually accepted instead of a block. Some admins will alert users to this option and give them a short period of time to revert themself before being blocked. But this is a courtesy, not a requirement. If a user has already made this "mistake" before and does it again and again, that's a different matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
User space
Mardetanha added a section without any conversation that might be worth discussing first because it's a fairly substantial change to a base policy. I encourage some eyes on the proposed change he added (I've linked to the diff above) so any issues have a chance for redress before it turns into an official lightning bolt. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Followup, I guess this has been an ongoing issue, I see a history of adds & deleted, but little recent conversation. Before I revert myself, I'd still love to request some discussion about whatever open issues are causing folks to volley this back and forth. I'm leaving some messages to recent editors of that section to try and wrangle 'em over here for a talk. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I support Mardetanha's edit as I believe a user should be aware that they have some control over their own page, within reason of course. As per my comment above in the section User talk pages, how just providing a link to Misplaced Pages:Don't readd removed comments? I think that would satisfy FloNight's concerns as well as mine. Ronnotel 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- As a general rule, editors can remove comments and warning from their talk page beyond the 3RR limit without being blocked. By removing them we know that they have been read and inquiring minds can look in the history to see them. Someone edit warring with an user to make them stay is often upset with them and might report them for a 3RR violation. The best course of action would be for an experienced user to step in and sort it out by getting every one to calm down. Important to remember that admin are never required to enforce 3RR violations with a block. (Personally, I rarely ever block when users 3rr, instead I remind them of the rule, I ask them to revert, and start a discussion. They usually agree. This is usually much more productive in the long run.)
- I support Mardetanha's edit as I believe a user should be aware that they have some control over their own page, within reason of course. As per my comment above in the section User talk pages, how just providing a link to Misplaced Pages:Don't readd removed comments? I think that would satisfy FloNight's concerns as well as mine. Ronnotel 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- That said I do not think changing the wording here is best. Usually users have control over their user and talk page. But users need to understand that when asked by a clueful administrator or knowledgeable editor to change their talk or user page to conform to our standards in a particular situation then they need to do so. Telling them that they can not get a block for edit warring over their user page is ripe for wikilawyering and will make them feel that they have rights to their user page that they do not really have. That is why I object to the change in wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- But what about my proposed compromise? Are you opposed to that as well - i.e. adding a link that re-adding comment to a user's page should be avoided. Ronnotel 20:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- That said I do not think changing the wording here is best. Usually users have control over their user and talk page. But users need to understand that when asked by a clueful administrator or knowledgeable editor to change their talk or user page to conform to our standards in a particular situation then they need to do so. Telling them that they can not get a block for edit warring over their user page is ripe for wikilawyering and will make them feel that they have rights to their user page that they do not really have. That is why I object to the change in wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I generally agree with FloNight that it's better not to encourage users to edit war on their user pages by giving an exception to 3RR for that. I'm neutral about a comment regarding not reinserting warnings; I don't see that this is the right place for that - it should go in the guideline about warnings. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- as i see and believe everyone' talk page in his or her own territory and we should respect it .even by violating 3rr .though i prefer by not doing this --mardetanha 22:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's more than possible to recognise that, generally speaking, users can control what is in their userspace, but we don't need to make an exception to 3RR to do so. Misplaced Pages:User page covers the ground on this issue adequately already. --bainer (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- but in fawiki we got some probelm one of editor's is going to be blocked by sysop for violating 3rr.so i think it MUST be in 3rr page --mardetanha 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps what is needed is a change from a list of 'exceptions' to a list of possible exceptions. Violating 3RR to keep a 'vandalism' warning over a content dispute off your user talk page shouldn't result in a block... but violating 3RR to keep a nasty personal attack on another user displayed on your user page may. Rather than trying to identify and list every specific instance where 3RR does/does not apply it might be better to provide some examples of the types of things admins may take into account when deciding whether to block or not. Most of the listed exceptions still involve judgment calls... if someone exceeds 3RR removing 'vandalism' and an admin thinks it is a content dispute they may still be blocked, if supposed 'BLP violations' turn out to be non-controversial everyday info supported by the references 3RR may still be blocked, et cetera. As noted above, stating 'this is an absolute exception to 3RR' inevitably invites abuse and wiki-lawyering. --CBD 12:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree that there must be a way to express this concern while acknowledging that the right to control one's page is not absolute. Ronnotel 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Reverting to undisputed versions
After reading this article I was under the impression that it was acceptable to revert to keep newly-added text that is being disputed on the talk page from an article, and also to defend the inclusion of tags notifying readers of the dispute. But when I tried to do this, I was criticised for engaging in an edit war.
This really ought to be made clearer on this page, as it's not unreasonable to expect that removal of new and controversial text that is still under discussion would leave you exempt from the 3RR. --Tom Edwards 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reverting back to an "undisputed version" does not exempt one from running afoul of 3RR unless one is reverting obvious vandalism or a BLP violation. The fact that people are willing to revert between one version and another indicates that neither version is undisputed and as such neither can claim to be the "undisputed version". If the version that you are trying to "enforce" is the version that contains the new and controversial text, just provide a link from the article's edit history of this version on the talk page so that other editors can see it. --Bobblehead 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I can't imagine where you would have gotten the idea that "it was acceptable to revert to keep newly-added text that is being dispute on the talk page from an article" from this policy. It's not inherently acceptable or not acceptable - what matters is that you should not be repeatedly reverting. The practice you describe is not exactly the norm, but neither is it a bad idea.. but if you find yourself being the only one reverting out the new changes while others are putting them back in, you should stop. If several people object to the change existing in the article, it can be removed. But flip-flopping back and forth does no one any good. Mangojuice 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just think that what you're saying there should be made explicit.
- What happens if you're reverting purely to defend the addition of dispute tags (when a dispute is ongoing, of course)? Would that be simple vandalism on the other user's part? --Tom Edwards 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Edit warring over dispute tags is particularly silly. Everyone should avoid it. The presence or absence of the tag doesn't affect whether there is actually a dispute. If someone removes a dispute tag and you feel there is still a dispute, the right course of action is to find wider attention for the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't imagine where you would have gotten the idea that "it was acceptable to revert to keep newly-added text that is being dispute on the talk page from an article" from this policy. It's not inherently acceptable or not acceptable - what matters is that you should not be repeatedly reverting. The practice you describe is not exactly the norm, but neither is it a bad idea.. but if you find yourself being the only one reverting out the new changes while others are putting them back in, you should stop. If several people object to the change existing in the article, it can be removed. But flip-flopping back and forth does no one any good. Mangojuice 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)