| Revision as of 16:21, 4 July 2009 editDeacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators39,746 edits →Archive and redirect?: new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 05:14, 12 July 2009 edit undoDeacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators39,746 edits archiveNext edit → |
| Line 21: |
Line 21: |
|
| |
|
| |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
== Regarding people that 3RR in just over 24 hours == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is the 24 hours a hard exact limit? If someone reverts three times within 24 hours+5 minutes, then they don't violate the policy? —] <sup>]</sup> 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I suppose one hasn't technically violated 3RR, but the application is not precise. If someone's edit warring they can get blocked short of 3RR anyway, and that's more likely to happen if there are other signs of trouble like contentiousness or wikigaming. 4 reverts in 24 hours + 5 minutes would appear on the surface to be gaming the system. ] (]) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That's why bright line rules suck. Of course, no one actually ever thought to do away with ]. <very innocent look> --] (]) 02:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Editor review??? ] (]) 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Kim means ], or ]. To answer Zachary's original question, it's worth considering the history of this page. Back in the days of yore, it was not uncommon to see edit wars filling whole screens worth of page histories. Edit warring was always considered to be a bad thing, but sometimes it was hard to say just whether someone had been edit warring or not. Sometimes even people who were quite obviously edit warring would take advantage of the general nature of the prohibitions on edit warring by wikilawyering. So in 2004 the three-revert rule was invented, to be a bright-line rule that would cover the really obvious cases. |
|
|
::What happened after that unfortunately is that people tended to forget that you could still be edit warring without actually breaching the three-revert rule, for example by making three or fewer reverts a day for several days, or reverting across a number of pages, and so on. Many types of edit warring will not be so immediately obvious as making more than three reverts in 24 hours, but they're still not acceptable. --] (]) 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Exactly as Thebainer says. In addition, people are often blocked for near-violations of the 3RR like that. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Bright line rules can be very helpful; if 25 hours are too few, why not just change the rule to 3 reverts in 3 days?] (]) 03:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No one objected to my suggestion above, and it's been nearly a week, but I really hesitate to try to edit a rule without more support (or even objection) from others with more experience. The policy on edit warring says, "Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing." The earlier comments above seem to assume that the person making the reverts is acting in "bad faith" and refusing to discuss, but in fact I recently had the opposite situation: one side (two people) reverted four times while refusing my requests to discuss . I kept inviting discussion until I got blocked for complying with 3RR. Once burned, twice shy, I will hesitate to go near 3RR without an ] to protect me from its "spirit." Nevertheless, I don't appreciate being branded with the scarlet letter of "bad faith" when in fact I was trying to encourage discussion and follow the rule. If you file your taxes on April 15, even though maybe you could have filed on March 20, the IRS doesn't accuse you of "bad faith" and send you to Guantanamo for 24 hours to protect America from your selfishness. (Maybe that's next, on the rationale that your tax dollars are needed asap to support the patriotic spirit of another war.) If the sign says "school zone, 25 mph" and you drive 25, they don't arrest you for violating the "spirit" of driving slowly. (Maybe somewhere they do, "Hey look at the bad guy, driving as fast as he's allowed to go, better suspend his license for a day to protect the community!") Blocking people who don't even violate the rule is like arresting someone for going 17 in a 25 zone: what's the point of a 25 limit if Officer Rhetorical's radar gun only goes to 19 and so he suspends the license of anyone anyone driving 20? WP is a collaborative effort of volunteers and trying to follow the rules shouldn't result in being blocked and stigmatized.] (]) 07:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, 3RR is really only one way to measure edit warring. That's the real rule: don't edit war. We can't make enough bright-line rules to cover all possible edit warring situations; they'll always be gamed. So we make one and use it fairly often, while keeping the not-a-bright-line rule in use as well. It's not really correct to compare this with tax deadlines and speed limits for this reason. (Comparing Misplaced Pages policies to real-world law is in general a shaky proposition.) ] ] 08:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks for the additional context. Perhaps the better solution would be to make the 3RR definition track the definition of edit warring, i.e. reverting three times (in one day or three) "instead of discussion." That would better match the proffered spirit, i.e. promoting discussion instead of brute force. It might also better approach the situation described above, where one side (two people) reverted four times while expressly refusing to discuss. To the extent reasonably possible, a policy should say what it means, and mean what it says; otherwise it's a "gotcha" trap, where well-intentioned people can fall victim to unseen spirits and ].] (]) 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== reverts of vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
What happens if discussion page content is removed by a registered member who is intent on vandalising my comments by interspersing his own into my text? If I revert, do I breach 3RRs? Should I report him to admin? At first I neatly separated his comments from mine and pasted them below, but he was intent on removing my comments entirely, and replaced them with fairly bad sarcasm.--]] 11:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If someone persists in interfering with talk page discussion, ] is probably the place to go. ] (]) 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm not sure mrg is referring to talk page comments. It is reasonable to revert someone modifying your comments once, but it's a dumb thing to get into an edit war over. It's usually possible to sidestep the issue: i.e. instead of undoing the changes you can leave a new message saying your previous message was altered over your objections, and link to the diff. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It seems to me that editing someone else's comments should be subjected to a 1RR rule. Unless it's done in response to a violation of Wiki policy, changing someone else's words is acceptable only when it's done it a good faith belief that the other user would be okay with it; once that other editor reverts you, that GFB is gone.] (]) 08:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Responding to specific concerns == |
|
|
Suppose that an edit summary cites a specific concern as justification for a revert. Is addressing that concern a separate edit? For instance, suppose I add a fact, another editor deletes it claiming that the reason for the revert is lack of citation, and I add the fact back in, this time with the requested cite. Does my second edit count as a separate revert? It seems to me that both the letter and the spirit of the rule say "no".] (]) 08:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I looked though the archives a few days ago, and I saw many variations of this question. None of them were answered. Per the letter of the rule, it would seem that replacing a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag with the citation it requests would count as a revert. '''3RR Administraors?''' ] (]) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The question is, is there an edit war? I ''would'' count the following as a violation: A adds fact without reference. B reverts. A re-adds fact with reference. B reverts. A reverts. B reverts. A reverts. C reverts. A reverts. Here, A only "reverted" 3 times, not more than 3, but the re-adding of the fact the first time is still the undoing of another user's edit. Note the presence of C here; if B had done it, B would also have broken the 3RR. That kind of situation looks like an edit war. I wouldn't normally hesitate to readd something with a reference if it was removed for not being referenced, but if I was in an edit war I would be cautious; probably better to discuss in that situation. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I think the question is more along the lines of: A adds fact without reference. B reverts. A reverts. B reverts. A reverts. B reverts. A reverts. C adds a {{tl|fact}} tag. A replaces the tag with a source. A has now undone C's addition of the tag, but it's A's fourth revert, technically. ] (]) 10:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Nobody would block A is their last edit was to add a reference. This follows from common sense, which is more important than the letter of the policy. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 13:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Replacing a fact tag with a source isn't a revert so I certainly wouldn't block for that. If C had reverted, saying the item was unsourced (instead of tagging it), and A returned the item with a reference, I would have to look carefully at the situation. If, for instance, C reported A for 3RR, I would probably block, because if C perceives a problem with A's behavior, there's a problem: C may have objected to more than sourcing... or A's source may have been inadequate. In A's place, I would advise against that kind of action; after B's multiple reverts and A's multiple reverts, it's time to go to discussion. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== template reinsertion == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is the reinsertion of obviously applicable tags like after they are repeatedly removed without discussion included in ] of "simple and obvious vandalism?"--''''']] ]''''' 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:No; it's not vandalism you're reverting, it's edit warring. That said, the other editor there needs to explain themselves. I'll leave them a note. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::If you are correct, then I'm also guilty of a 3rr. Oh well. --''''']] ]''''' 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If I insert a template disputing the title, and it is removed three times, no title can ever be disputed without breaching the 3RR. Is my only option to initiate a dispute resolution?--] (]) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Why is it 3RR instead of, say, 4RR?== |
|
|
Let's say an article is in version A (original) and version B (controversial new version). A typical sequence of edits might be: |
|
|
*Article changed from version A => B (no reversions) |
|
|
*Article reverted from version B => A (revert #1 editor for A) |
|
|
*Article reverted from version A => B (revert #1 editor for B) |
|
|
*Article reverted from version B => A (revert #2 editor for A) |
|
|
*Article reverted from version A => B (revert #2 editor for B) |
|
|
*Article reverted from version B => A (revert #3 editor for A) |
|
|
*Article reverted from version A => B (revert #3 editor for B) |
|
|
|
|
|
As we can see from this sequence, the editor supporting the original version is always the one who ends up getting punished by the ] rule. In fact, for any odd number, the one restoring an article to a balanced and stable version will always end up violating the ] rule before the editor who pushes a new and highly controversial version; whereas, for any even number, the editor who makes a change will hit the number of reversions before the person who tries to maintain the original version. Why was an odd number chosen for the rule? ← <span style="font-family: serif;"><b>]</b></span><sup> (])</sup> 05:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Umm...it'll be the same with an even number. Basically, whoever makes the first revert will hit the number of allowed revisions first.] (]) 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Actually, I am not sure why 3 was the magic number; I am sure it comes from early talks with Jimbo, though. However I remember an attempt to make it 4 instead of 3. We have a ], too. In any case, the reason of 3RR is not to use all your reverts, but instead give you time enough to realize you are edit warring. If I edit and someone reverts me, it means someone does not agree with me. If I revert him, I revert knowing that someone is not agreeing with me and yet I want to make my position the definitive regardless of his opinion. The second revert means someone greatly objects my change, or that there are at least two users not agreeing with me. If by that time you haven't yet realized you should stop and discuss, you are not likely to stop. Blocking is not punitive, but preventive, and if you haven't realized you have people who is not agreeing with you, the rule allows admins to block someone since he is not likely to stop after he has done a third revert. -- ] (]) 05:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::And by the way, no matter which page you protect or is reverted at, it is always ]. -- ] (]) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::(ec) This is why I don't believe in mechanical enforcement of the 3RR. In cases like this, where both users are edit warring, I feel admins should block both or neither, regardless of whether one has exceeded the arbitrary limit of three in one day (possible exceptions if other factors are in play, such as if one has a long history of edit warring or is being uncivil). ] ] 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Suggested exception to 3RR: grammar and spelling== |
|
|
Does it seem reasonable to suggest an exception to the 3RR rule where the edit in question relates '''solely''' to the correction of poor grammar or incorrect spelling? |
|
|
|
|
|
For example, assume that a User had already made his or her three reverts or changes and had been intentionally amending the content of an article (ie. changes which would indeed count towards 3RR). The User then makes a fourth change during the 24 hour period but solely to fix spelling or grammatical errors introduced by other editors and which does not seek to perpetuate the direction of the earlier three edits. Should this fall within an exception? |
|
|
|
|
|
If this were acceptable, I would '''not''' intend it to apply in circumstances where a discussion of grammar or spelling itself was the focus of the article in question, such as in ] or ]; but rather in all other cases where the correction of the spelling or grammar improves the readability of the article without changing its direction. Kind regards--''''']<sup>]</sup>''''' 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:But then wouldn't we need to add poor grammar and incorrect spelling as forms of ]? If someone comes and adds nonsense, and you revert three times, and then someone comes and adds a new paragraph that is not understandable, really bad written or does not add anything to the article and you revert again, I don't see anything wrong with that. If it is not salvageable, it should not stay in the article. However, sometimes they are useful and should be rewritten instead. -- ] (]) 12:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for your thoughts. Obviously vandalism connotes an element of bad faith which is lacking in cases of poor spelling and grammar. But essentially the idea would be if an editor corrected the latter (ie. rewrote the text rather than deleted it), there should be a carve-out from the 3RR rules. Perhaps this would only arise in very unusual circumstances, but it is cases which are at the margin where issues of fairness are felt most keenly. Kind regards--''''']<sup>]</sup>''''' 16:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: It says more than three reverts, not more than three edits. The fourth edit in the situation you describe would only be a revert if someone had intentionally changed correct spelling to incorrect spelling, which would be vandalism -- ] (]) 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Sandbox== |
|
|
Does the 3RR apply to the sandbox as well? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Do people edit war at the Sandbox? If so, Lord help Misplaced Pages. Well, I don't know that the Sandbox has any exemptions beyond the usual ones. Is there a specific situation you're wondering about? ] ] 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No I was just wondering If I could pratice many new things with editing In there as much as I want.] (]) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, because practicing editing is not reverting, and therefore not covered by this rule. ] ] 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And people laughed when I proclaimed my ] (see #2) at my RfA. They laughed, I tell you. Well who's laughing now? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA ] (]) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reverting edits by anonymous users applies to this rule? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering if reverting more than three edits made by the same IP address and it's not a clear vandalism will broke this rule. <b><font color="#002BB8">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#002BB8">]</font></sup> 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would guess in most cases, yes, unless the material added is unsourced and violates ]. Both you and the IP are bound by 3RR, so your best bet would probably be to wait a day and revisit it later. Often the anon user won't return, or another editor watching the article will revert the information before that. ''']''' <sup><font color="#8FBC8F">(</font>]<font color="#4B0082">)</font></sup> 02:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for replying. But that information it is not specified in the rule page. Or atleast I haven't see it. <b><font color="#002BB8">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#002BB8">]</font></sup> 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What information is not specified? The ]? Or that IPs are not exempted from 3RR? ''']''' <sup><font color="#4F7C4F">(</font>]<font color="#4B0082">)</font></sup> 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That reverting more than three times edits by a single IP address will not break the rule. <b><font color="#002BB8">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#002BB8">]</font></sup> 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, it ''will'' break the rule. If you revert an anon IP three times, that's a 3RR violation. If an anon IP reverts you three times, that's a 3RR violation on them. Anons and registered users have the same set of rules; it says as much in the very first line of the article. ''']''' <sup><font color="#4F7C4F">(</font>]<font color="#4B0082">)</font></sup> 02:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::But it doesn't specify that about IP users. <b><font color="#002BB8">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#002BB8">]</font></sup> 02:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::"The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to '''all''' Wikipedians." There's no reason to call out IPs more than registered accounts - they're already covered. ''']''' <sup><font color="#4F7C4F">(</font>]<font color="#4B0082">)</font></sup> 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Don't worry about what anyone else is doing, worry about what you are doing. More than three reverts in 24 hours is breaking the rule. Maybe someone else broke it too, but that's irrelevant in answering the question of whether you broke it. --] (]) 03:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Reverting edits made by anonymous users does not make those reverts an "exception" - IP editors are not second-class citizens. If you find an article under assault of inappropriate changes made by IP editors, request semi-protection at ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: There might be a little confusion about the meaning of "edit". If an IP did eight different edits in a row, reverting to the version before that chain of edits counts as 1 reversion and not 8. You'd have a tally of 1 reversion and the IP 0. If the IP reverts your change then the tally is 1 yours and 1 IP reversion. -- ] (]) 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== 24-hour rule no longer applies? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I recently placed a <nowiki>{{Disputed title|alternate title=Chisinau}}</nowiki> on the ] article. Although "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.", and I did not perform template restores more then 3 times in 24 hours, I was never the less told that I am being disruptive by an administrator in Wikiquette alerts. I thought this was strange, so was wondering if I can have a clarification on this. |
|
|
: PS. Is reverting of the same edit by three different people countering the original editor also a subject of the 3RR?--] (]) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 09:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Read the policy. The three-revert rule doesn't establish that users have the right to revert up to 3 times in a day: rather, it makes it clear that more than that is unacceptable. That doesn't mean the fewer is acceptable, and in fact it is very often not acceptable, especially if the pattern continues over time. If you are reverting frequently you are nonetheless ], and a block would be appropriate if you seem to have no intention of stopping. And no, 3RR does not at all apply to a group of separate editors. Part of the point of that is so that a lone editor who dissents can't hold the article hostage. ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: The policy is ]ed. Either "three" ''means'' "three", in which case admins are not allowed to play mind readers as this one did and ascribed intent which ] denied, or it doesn't mean "three" (which actually seems to be the reality) and any admin who doesn't like you for any reason from racism based on your name to how well you spell can block you for making any change to any article just by hanging the label "disruptive" on you. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: If "three" doesn't really mean "three", then give the rule another name instead of being ] about it. -- ] (]) 06:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reverting pure vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
Lets say a user vandalises a page. I revert it and warn them (1). They vandalise it again. I revert it and give them warning level (2). They vandalise it a third time. I revert it a third time and give them a level (3) warning. They vandalise it for a fourth time. What next!? Should i not revert it and still give them a level (4) warning? - Thanks, help on this matter would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The policy page says that 3RR does not apply to reversions of "simple and obvious" vandalism. However, what is simple and obvious to one person may not be to another. At the minimum I would only do it if it's so obvious that no person could in good faith disagree. Even there, edit warring is a touchy business and you are risking being warned or blocked yourself, rightly or wrongly, if it looks like you're one of the people perpetuating an edit war. I would probably sit back and let another editor jump in, perhaps give the vandal a 3RR warning in addition to the vandalism warning, and report it to an administrative notice board, rather than taking the whole thing on myself even if policy permits it. ] (]) 23:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Encountering a revert war == |
|
|
|
|
|
A 3RR issue recently came up on AN/I that isn't addressed by this policy, but probably should be. It got heated there, so I won't go over the particulars and just frame it generically. |
|
|
|
|
|
User A and User B have rung up three reverts each on a page; it's a content disagreement, not an obvious case of vandalism. User C comes along, decides she likes User A's version, and reverts to it. Bad idea, generally. User A has treated three reverts like an entitlement and to revert to him, validates the behaviour. User B is suddenly going to feel that, though both may have sinned, he is now more sinned against and become angry. There would obviously have to be caveats—particularly, if User B was disrupting long-standing wording without discussion it probably is best to revert. But I think it would be useful to address the general problem. ] (]) 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:In the perfect world User:C would take it too the talk page and use sound reasoning to persuade User:B that User:A's is a preferable version. Certainly appearing and taking sides on the article will just inflame the situation and make the article less stable. ] ] 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There's another possible scenario - of editors deliberately acting in concert to get their way by combining their reverts to overwhelm a small group of opponents. User A disagrees with users B and C over a content issue. In order to get his own way, user A calls in ideological allies in the shape of users D and E, perhaps coordinating with them off-wiki or on a talk page somewhere. A, D and E have, between them, nine reverts. B and C have six reverts between them. A, D and E can overwhelm B and C simply by reverting more times than their opponents can. This isn't a theoretical possibility; I've seen this sort of thing actually happening on highly contested articles. In at least three cases that I can think of, I've seen hard evidence of ideologically allied groups of editors engaging in prior coordination of contentious editing activities (using e-mail, instant messaging or other web forums to coordinate their tactics). Unfortunately we don't seem to be very effective at dealing with gaming tactics of this nature, particularly if they involve established editors rather than an influx of POV-pushing newbies. -- ] (]) 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The 3-revert rule can't solve everything by itself. The question is whether the scenario you describe constitutes ] or not. From the way it sounds, I would say that's edit warring, and I would consider warning all those users that they need to engage more productively, and blocking them if they continue to revert-war, and probably protecting the page. But it could also be that B and C have a minority position that they know is a minority position and are just trying to hold the article hostage against a clear consensus. The 3-revert rule does give an edge to the larger group -- that doesn't mean the larger group is always right, but it does mean that they have an advantage by default. I'm okay with that - more often than not, the larger group has consensus on their side. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The issue of course is that everybody knows that editors A/D/E in ChrisO's example (or editors S/C/J if you prefer) are a longstanding editing/adminning tag team. It doesn't violate the letter of any policies, so we all shrug and accept it. I don't see how we could write a policy that would prohibit this since in practice there's no bright line between people who just happen to have similar interests and those who have formed a bloc. ] (]) 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Except you're missing a step: A's second revert in this case was already edit warring, the third was certainly, the other editors aside. Regular editors are blocked for edit warring even if they don't reach three reverts. ] (]) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I was shrugging as well on AN/I, Raymond, because there is no bright line and it's hard to police this behaviour. But that doesn't mean the policy should say nothing—it's not uncommon, after all, to come across other people's edit wars. ChrisO is very right about editors beyond C, but people aren't going to conceptualize that far, so I think any wording would have to stick to two parties + third party. ] (]) 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Tandem edit warring is clearly gaming; doing it in a pattern as a reverse form of wikistalking is enabling and manipulative of good faith and etiquette. Raymond's initials of the involved edits are the elephant in the room example. What's going on is cabaling, not collaborating. What we need are admins willing to use judgment to make bold decisions that obviously need to be made and not pussyfoot around about the necessity of "bright lines." |
|
|
:I've been conceptualizing some language in my thoughts as proposed wording. Words in policies will help make this explicitly actionable to reticent admins. I'll write it down later for discussion. ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Edit war vs. 3 reverts== |
|
|
I was thinking about posting a suggestion to modify this policy on the ] and thought I'd see what any regular editors here thought first. |
|
|
|
|
|
This policy appears to have a few ways for the system to be gamed so that it can actually be used as a tool in an edit war rather than preventing them. If the idea is to limit edit warring wouldn't it be better to address that instead of concentrating on the number of reversions alone? Don't get me wrong, 3RR is a symptom of edit warring, but by no means the only one. For example sock puppets are often used in an edit war just as much as three or more reverts. Gaps are created in enforcement which helps both trolls and good faith editors who refuse to engage in discussion by essentially giving them the ability to continue, without having to discuss their differences. As long as they don't break one rule too much since they know people on the 3RR board aren't interested in sock puppet problems, so long as they aren't egregious. |
|
|
|
|
|
In short, why not create an enforcement/noticeboard designed to curb edit warring, with behavior like 3RR, sock puppetry, coi, or whatever is discussed with an eye toward how they relate to possible edit wars. An example post would be something like this though not necessarily in table form of course: |
|
|
{|class=wikitable |
|
|
! Article name !! Editor(s) involved !! Evidence !! Outcome |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Widgets |
|
|
| Editor 1, Editor 2, and Editor 3 (E1, E2, and E3) |
|
|
| 3RR by E1: <diff1> <diff2> etc. presented by E2 and E3<br/>COI by E1: <diff> presented by E2 and E3 |
|
|
| E1 was edit warring and warned |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|}] 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I was thinking about adding a section titled "What the 3-revert rule is not." Specifically, it could include an entry like "The 3-revert rule is not a weapon" that explicitly condemns attempts to get others blocked by continuing to revert. Also, it's not an entitlement, and it's not the only rule against edit warring. What do people think? ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think what you are looking for is our policy on ]ring. ]·] 07:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree that your ideas could do something to help ] :) I was thinking of consolidating enforcement of the 3RR and others related to edit warring into its own noticeboard so that people conducting edit wars can't use the separate nature of the 3RR noticeboard/Suspected sock noticeboard/etc. to game the overall system. |
|
|
|
|
|
] I'm actually aware of the policy, and my point is that we have so many different areas devoted to addressing specific symptoms of edit warring but nothing (noticeboard wise) for it. (Granted there are routes such as RfCs or 3O but these solutions rarely seem to work or are simply ignored in favor of the ]. ] 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Introduction == |
|
|
|
|
|
Except in special circumstances? What special circumstances? Trying to make the article better? ] (]) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I personally would like this question answered with a simple yes or no. ''If you have reverted an article three times and it gets vandalised (clear vandalism that is) again, can you reverted it again?'' Thanks <span style="color:green"> ''']''' </span> | <span style="color:blue"> ''']''' </span> 17:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, ] (not subject to 3RR). see ]--] (]) 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm glad you said that. Because an ] ive reverted 3 times on today has just been vandalised again! <span style="color:green"> ''']''' </span> | <span style="color:blue"> ''']''' </span> 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Just had a look at the article you mentioned, your last is perfectly fine. No worries, thanks for reverting it.--] (]) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removing AFD notices == |
|
|
|
|
|
An editor has twice removed an AFD notice, despite the notice itself stating that "this notice must not be removed". If he continues to remove the notice and I continue to undo his removal of the notice, am I potentially guilty of violating 3RR? I am prepared to report him for a 3RR violation if he continues, but I want to make sure that I myself am not violating 3RR. For now, I am treating his removal as vandalism and my undoing of that vandalism is excepted from the rule. If I am wrong, then I will self-revert my restoring of the notice. ] (]) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've always considered removal of AFD notices to be tantamount to vandalism, assuming the user has been told not to remove them. At any rate, though, I've just checked your contribs and found the article in question and watchlisted it so I can help if the user keeps it up. ] ] 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Replace this rule?== |
|
|
Does this rule have to be so mathematical? There are already so many exceptions and additional stipulations that the numerical criterion of "3 reverts" effectively doesn't (or at least shouldn't) apply anymore. So what if someone's made three reverts to protect the encyclopedia from unreasonable edits? They shouldn't be blocked for that; they shouldn't even have to worry about the possibility of being blocked. The only criterion to be applied should be reasonableness of behaviour. Since the first shot in an edit war isn't a revert, the rule currently implies that in a simple one-on-one edit war, the party defending the status quo is assumed to be in the wrong (and of course the rule can easily be manipulated/evaded anyway by the use of puppets). |
|
|
|
|
|
I would judge reasonableness in edit warring largely by willingness to engage in dialog. If one side initiates a talk page discussion, and the other side keeps reverting without engaging sensibly in that discussion, then we have a situation where a block could be considered. Let's replace this arbitrary 3RR with an UEWR (Unreasonable Edit Warring Rule) or something along those lines.--] (]) 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I believe the policy that you are looking for is ]. That policy pretty much covers edit warring regardless of the number of reverts. I've always viewed 3RR as a way to prevent a single user from forcing their opinion on an article. If the status quo truly has consensus, then it shouldn't only be one editor defending it. If it is one editor defending the status quo, then that is probably evidence that the status quo doesn't have consensus and that discussion should be taking place on what is the consensus. It also tends to prevent ] as a single user can't stop multiple editors from making changes to an article and claim that they are defending the status quo. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::That makes sense for major articles which are being watched by multiple online editors, but not in cases where only one person happens to be currently online and interested. For example, I don't see why someone can make the same misinformed edit to an article four times (only the last three counting as reverts), declining all offers to discuss on the talk page, and I then have to leave his version in place for 24h because if I revert it again I'll be in danger of being summarily blocked.--] (]) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Unless it is a BLP violation or vandalism(which are exempt from 3rr), then it can stay up on Misplaced Pages for a few hours until someone else comes along. I know it can be aggravating, but until someone else chimes in then it's just a he said, she said. If it's a protracted content dispute and the person continues to not respond, you can always ask for assistance on AN/I, and/or solicit assistance from one of the wikiprojects on the article. Basically just ask for an extra set of eyes on the article. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::OK, I'll try that next time it happens.--] (]) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Proposed amendment to rule== |
|
|
The 3RR has come up again at the Village Pump - a policy change is being proposed there, whereby a 3RR block would only be possible if preceded by a warning and if the offender persists. This seems only reasonable, since a similar courtesy is extended to vandals under the ], and over-zealous edit-warriors can hardly be thought to merit harsher treatment than vandals. (Can they?) |
|
|
|
|
|
The relevant thread is at ] - the proposal in question appears towards the ''end'' of that section.--] (]) 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] of the blocking policy already covers this, and that should not be duplicated here (or worse, inconsistent material should not be added here). --] (]) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well, I'm not sure that the ''present'' wording of "here" is consistent with "that". It certainly seems skewed that the wording of the vandalism policy places so much emphasis on the need for a warning first, while this 3RR policy hardly mentions it. --] (]) 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposed rewording of the libel exception == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Reverts to remove clear violations of the ], including ] and unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material." |
|
|
|
|
|
Verfiability is only one half of the BLP policy - we must also take into account NPOV - given dedication, a user can write a brilliantly sourced but absolutely negative article about a person, and efforts to fix a violation of a ] aren't given the same protection as removing violations of a (non-negotiable all the same) wiki-by-wiki issue. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Not an entitlement" section added == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've very frequently seen this rule used as a defense in unblock requests from people blocked for edit warring: "I didn't make three reverts!" and the like. I've added that section to make it a little more clear that that is, quite frankly, irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. ] to avoid breaking rules is, if anything, more disruptive than simply edit warring, and ] notes that blocks can be made just for edit warring as well. If anyone disagrees with it, I'm open to discussion, but it seems this is more-or-less just a copy of what's posted elsewhere. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think there should also be something against another form of system gaming - trying to trap an "opponent" into breaking 3RR in order to get them blocked. In fact, as I've said somewhere above, I think the making of a fourth revert is pretty irrelevant in trying to identify guilty parties in edit wars, and the numerical aspect of this rule should be abandoned or at least toned down.--] (]) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think that's kinda of covered by the admonition to "follow the spirit of the law, not the letter," and users who do so would likely be blocked for trolling as well as edit warring. You're welcome to add it in if you like, however. I don't see much problem with it, as again, it's basically restating what's already elsewhere. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 15:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=="Fairly" instead of "equally"== |
|
|
In similar situation the Arbitration Committee has started using the word "fairly" rather than "equally" so it is clear that individual circumstances will be taken into consideration for each editor. Both side of a dispute need to be examined and treated fairly based on their individual level of disruptive editing in the current and previous situations. I changed the wording here as well since that is what happens and editors need to understand it. ]] 12:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Bold change to exception== |
|
|
|
|
|
The rule for the exception to vandalism reverts and BLP reverts were not parallel. I made them parallel with this edit: . I encourage others to improve it, if they can, but the basic idea should be that it should be ''obvious'' BLP violations. This clause could be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card otherwise, which is not its intention. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 00:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't agree (and have reverted). ] violations, even if not immediately obvious to the casual user, need to be robustly removed (for legal and moral reasons). It oughtn't to lead to get-out-of-jail-free situations, since the "accused" would still have to provide convincing arguments to show that they were acting under this clause.--] (]) 06:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Clarification - editors or numbers? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey. So.. on ], an admin wrote that "The WP:3RR does not require the same editor to be reverted, only the same content." An editor (who has been reverting fairly frequently) has been repeatedly recalling this rule, but I can't find any evidence on this page backing that up. Is it actual policy, or is just the opinion of one editor? Thanks. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The wording "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time" says to me that it does not matter which users you are reverting. It does not have to be the same person or the same content to be a violation, simply reverting too many times is enough. ] 14:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Er, alright. I was thinking more of like, one editor making edits and multiple editors reverting the other editor's edits. In other words, the following actions: |
|
|
::*Editor A makes an edit |
|
|
::*Editor B reverts that edit |
|
|
::*Editor A reverts the last edit |
|
|
::*Editor B reverts the last edit |
|
|
::*Editor C reverts the last edit |
|
|
::*Editor A reverts the last edit |
|
|
::In this case, can editor B and C be counted as 3RR, since collectively they reverted three times? — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Ah. Well no, B and C are not in technical violation of 3RR(unless they are the same person socking of course). B and C could be considered to be edit warring, and depending on the content of the reversion it could be considered disruptive. I think A needs to take B and C to the talk page. ] 15:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It's edit warring without a doubt, but I was just curious as to the interpretations of 3RR in this context. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 'Unwanted Edit' addition == |
|
|
|
|
|
I reverted as as written the section about other exceptions is listing what you ''can't'' revert to on your user page, and I think that if people want to revert to vandalism on their own page they should be able to. Certainly having sections refernce one annother could lead to unintended consequences if only section is edited but not the other. ] (]) 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ambiguity in revert definition == |
|
|
|
|
|
The definition of a revert is currently 'undoing the actions of another editor'. Suppose the page history is like this: |
|
|
#Alice writes A |
|
|
#Bob expands it to AA |
|
|
#Carol replaces AA by BB |
|
|
#Dave reverts BB to AA |
|
|
#Carol reverts AA to BB |
|
|
How many reverts did Carol make so far? The wording on the 3RR reporting page suggests that #3 is not a revert since there is no prior version that is being reverted to (i.e., Carol made one revert). However, in edit #3, Carol ''did'' undo the work of Alice and Bob, which falls under the definition of a revert (i.e. Carol made two reverts). I would appreciate a bit less ambiguity. ] (]) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Replace" is not the same as "revert". ], which is linked to in the second sentence in the body of this policy, says, explicitly, ''Reverting involves returning a page to a previous version.''. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 21:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Presumably we need a more robust definition here, though. Otherwise people might return to a slightly different version (by rewording their own preferred version slightly) and claim that they are not reverting.--] (]) 21:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I notice just under the link you mention, there is actually a specific definition of revert for the purposes of this rule (with a disclaimer that it is such). Perhaps the word "revert" should be de-linked to avoid confusion. (Doing this.)--] (]) 22:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Number 3 in your example is not a revert because it involves the introduction of substantial new content. A user who repeatedly replaced other users' content with substantial new content would not be violating the three-revert rule – but could still be blocked for edit warring if it was disruptive. Don't forget that ] is policy too; this policy does not and is not intended to cover all edit warring, just a particular scenario -- ] (]) 10:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Although I agree with you, my point is that this kind of distinction was and is not clear from the definition of a revert in the context of 3RR ("undoing an action"). I see that you changed the wording into "reverse actions" , but that does not resolve the ambiguity IMO. If I change the above edit history example into this (Example 2): |
|
|
:::1. Alice writes A |
|
|
:::2. Bob expands it to AA |
|
|
:::3a. Carol reverts to A |
|
|
:::3b. Carol replaces A by BB |
|
|
:::4. Dave reverts BB to AA |
|
|
:::5. Carol reverts AA to BB |
|
|
::then the end result is the same, while it would be counted as a revert here. A 3RR that treats #3 in the first example differently from #3a/b in the second example is bad rule IMO. ] (]) 20:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::3RR ''is'' a bad rule in my opinion, for this reason and several others... However, given that the community seems to be wedded to it, we have to do the best we can. If you can think of a tighter definition of revert, then do tell. But as Gurch says, there are other policies besides 3RR to deal with edit warring, so we don't have to cover every possible case on this page.--] (]) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== User page 3RR == |
|
|
|
|
|
Should a user who removes something like a sock puppet warning repeatedly from his user page be considered in violation of 3RR? This is the issue with a suspected sock puppet (and all but definite one-shot account) currently pushing an agenda. I'll not name names, but if you check my contribs you'll probably figure out who I mean. --] <small>(]|])</small> 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would rather see the 3RR criterion apply to all pages; there's no reason an editor should be edit warring on their user pages. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::FYI, ] is talking about ] (]) 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Note that you started the reverting, though, which puts you in violation before Gene. --] <small>(]|])</small> 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Note that already Gene's first edit violated Misplaced Pages policies, which puts Gene in violation before me. ] (]) 02:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::And which one was that? This enquiry of mine is strictly from the POV of the 3RR, without other policies interfering. Rather than continually reverting like you did, you could have actually offered up some evidence in your favour. That you didn't, however, only goes on to increase suspicions. |
|
|
:::::If you want to keep debating that, your or my user page would be a better place. Note that you're probably not the first, nor the last, to have potential 3RR issues in your user space, and the discussion here should allow for other scenarios as well. --] <small>(]|])</small> 02:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::], it is clear that ] asked you to vandalize ], because ] and you tried to provoke a 3RR-violation from my side. However, this plan didn't succeed because I posted to the administrators' noticeboard instead of starting an edit war. ] (]) 02:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You and him already got into the 3RR war before I jumped in on your user page. Also you meant to say "as well as" rather than "instead of". If you want to keep arguing about this, do so ]. As far as I'm concerned, my question for here is answered, and the issue in relation to this talk page is closed. --] <small>(]|])</small> 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::(EC)Adam didn't breach as he had the right to remove a false claim which wasn't backed-up. I think it would be best to start proving at ] then continue to make claims which you can't backup and are breaching ]. ] (]) 03:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::On the other side, you took part at ]'s vandalism of my user page . ] (]) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please see ]: ''Reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.'' A user is allowed to blank his/her own page without violating 3RR. It does appear, however, that Gene Poole has on Adam233’s page. —]] 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm willing to accept that Gene also broke 3RR in this case, and I wasn't much help on that front either. However, "serious" accusations such as sock puppetry or being highly NPOV shouldn't be hidden away while an issue is open about it, but rather discussed with the interested parties. Simply reverting those seems like something that would violate 3RR. --] <small>(]|])</small> 02:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Again, Adam233 is in no danger of violating 3RR on ]. As other admins and users have stated, if you or another user has evidence of sockpuppetry, make your claim at ] rather than edit warring on the user page. —]] 02:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It'd be a lot easier to collect said evidence if user names didn't obscure IP addresses. But again this isn't the place for that discussion; I'm just saying that user warnings shouldn't be flat-out reverted. In this case it was a sock puppet accusation; tomorrow someone might accuse me of being highly NPOV and put a similar banner on my user page. If I got in an edit war over something like that on my user page, as far as I'm concerned, I'd be violating 3RR even though it's my user page. You see what I'm saying? This needs to be clarified in policy, which way such a scenario goes. This one incident is just a specialization of a general issue that I want clarification on. --] <small>(]|])</small> 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Reverts to a user’s page by the user are explicitly exempted in policy as I point out above. Unless his/her reverts violate some other policy, e.g. copyright violation, personal attacks, libel, or abuse of {{tl|unblock}}, he/she is not violating 3RR. —]] 02:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you, the straight answer I was looking for (finally). --] <small>(]|])</small> 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rewrite == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have rewritten this to make it shorter and more concise. There is no (intentional) change to what the policy actually says -- ] (]) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Nice work!--] (]) 08:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Regarding your change, it said "simple and obvious vandalism" before, and I left it like that because I didn't want to change the meaning. I don't have any opinion on whether that's what it ''should'' say -- ] (]) 09:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Clarification - more than 1 revert in a single edit? == |
|
|
|
|
|
*Question 1) Sometimes people revert multiple users or sections all at once with a single edit. Does this count as a single revert or multiple reverts? (If the answer is yes the second question seems answered) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Question 2) Sometimes users make several reverts right after each other, using several edits. These edits happen only minutes apart and nobody has edited inbetween those reverts except for said user. Does this count as a single revert or multiple reverts? |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers, ] (]) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Regardless of how many edits a person removes in a single edit, it is considered a single revert. A revert is a single edit, or consecutive sequence of edits, that undoes the edit(s) of another user. Both of your above examples would be 1 revert. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::So, to make things clear, if a user makes 8 edits right after each other, edits which together revert multiple users, it still counts as a single revert? ] (]) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As long as no one edits in between those 8 edits, it would count as one revert. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Alright, thanks a lot. ] (]) 00:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Your explanation of 3rr finally makes sense to me, since I never quite "got" the second, explanatory paragraph. To make this page truly user and newbie friendly, I'd like to propose that that language be incorporated, and some confusing or redudant material removed, so it reads something like: |
|
|
::::::''Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, except in certain circumstances. A revert is any action, or consecutive sequence of actions - including administrative actions - that reverses the edits or other actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A group of consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. In other words, regardless of how many edits a person reverts in a single edit, it is considered a single revert.'' |
|
|
::::::Thoughts?? ] (]) 03:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Guess I'll have to just do it to get comments :-) I'm also not sure if including "whether or not the edits involve the same material" is redundant to the way I write it above. ] (]) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Looking at the original again, I figured out how to address my concerns ''of this paragraph not making sense'' by just changing a few words to make it more clear. If I got part of it wrong, please keep any part I got right :-)!! ] (]) 14:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==How to win a revert war== |
|
|
There is |
|
|
. Is that worth attention?] (]) 02:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's very interesting. But we should absolutely not advertise it here, per ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Old Scope Creep? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes you find something you've never seen even in old policies! Why does this global policy need to have extremely specific exemption in it? This appears to be long resolved, and if it came up as a serious issue again it shouldn't be a debate of "IT'S POLICY!" but an RFC issue. I propose removing this line, any opinions? Thanks! — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:In practice, having this clause in the policy doesn't help much, since figuring out which of two names is the one more conformant to ] is usually a subtle matter requiring discussion. (In the one case where I noticed an editor claiming this exemption, it was not on Gdansk itself, but on another Polish town). So having the Gdansk vote be an exemption is nowhere near as simple as having vandalism be an exemption. I would support removing this exemption from policy. ] (]) 05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sounds fair enough to me. The exception is very clearly related to the origins of the 3RR itself - the gdansk/dansig controversy. So, given that controversy no longer exists there is no longer a need to link specifically to it. We're big enough to be able to understand the policy on its own merits rather than go back to old debates. ] ] 13:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Removed -- ] (]) 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sounds good. If anyone decides that this would be a good time to test the Gdanskig compromise, I'm prepared to block for ] — 3RR or not. ](]) 23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Added illegal content exemption == |
|
|
|
|
|
Just a heads up, I figured it was obvious and safe to just add it without talking here, but I added . Since people might technically not post an actual iso to pirated software or child porn, for example, but instead just link to a rapidshare of it or something, I figured it would be good to spell that out here, since it didn't really seem to me to fall under any of the other exceptions. Anyway, if there are any objections, feel free to trout me. Cheers :P --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 21:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Not sure. "Illegal" in whose juristiction? ] (]) 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hardly seems necessary; that falls under the rubric of "vandalism". --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge with ]? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think now that the noticeboard has been renamed, this policy should be merged into one page, Edit warring. All edit warring is bad, not just when one reverts more than three times, so I'd even go so far as to suggest removing 3RR as a policy completely, and let admins decide if the edit warring is harmful enough to warrant a block, and not be guided by an arbitrary number that can easily be gamed. – ] (]) 14:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is sense and attainable consensus for the merge, but not from removing 3RR as a policy. 3RR is a brightline policy, one of a few, and it still requires discretion. 3RR cannot be gamed if the admin is sensible, because gaming the 3RR restriction is in and of itself, a breach that invites a block. 3RR is a failsafe: a way to say "Under almost any circumstance, THIS is definitely edit warring." It is not, and was never intended to be, a comprehensive definition of what an edit war is.--] (]) 14:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I support a merge and, if 3RR is to be kept as an example, then as noted above I suggest making the 3RR definition track the definition of edit warring, i.e. reverting three times "instead of discussion." That would address situations where one side reverts while refusing to discuss (e.g. ). In my opinion, discussion is the more principled difference between collaborative editing and revert warring. Numbers can too easily be gamed by a cabal or other means, and besides uneven enforcement of the number has made it less of a bright line anyway (see above). |
|
|
:Also as noted above the time could be extended from the current 1 day to 3 days. It might also help to encourage people encountering this situation to ].] (]) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::"3RR cannot be gamed if the admin is sensible...": but if admins are sensible, they will be able to take the right action without any need for an arbitrary standard like 3RR (which in any case has many exceptions which require judgement on the admin's part). I agree that we should be thinking about the edit warring question in terms that are more principled than mathematical, and stop kidding ourselves that we can deal with such situations by a numerical algorithm.--] (]) 09:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: Merged. -- ] (]) 13:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Undone by myself and Jehochman. This needs a lot more discussion and a far better reason than the renaming of the noticeboard. The 3RR continues to be a useful rule to help illustrate objective cases of edit warring. It needs its own page where it can be fully described, and where it doesn't interfere with the purpose of ], which is to directly and clearly describe what edit warring is. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I quite disagree. Let's keep it all on one page. Gurch was doing an excellent job, and I see no reason for others to come along and blanket revert the changes in contravention of the very policies the pages are about.--] (]) 14:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Indeed, I don't understand why you rolled-back a trusted former-admin like a vandal, with no explanation whatsoever. If admins can't tell what is edit warring and what isn't without the help of a number, perhaps they shouldn't be admins. This proposal should be advertised somewhere so more people can comment. – ] (]) 15:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I suggest you post at ] to advertise the debate, if you want more feedback from the community. Let me note, BTW, that Jehochman was the one who reverted Gurch's change at ]; I then undid the redirection of this page and ], so that the 3RR would still be described somewhere. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Discussion is now taking place at ]; since it covers a number of policy pages, I suggest continuing in that one venue.--] (]) 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I don't think that discussion will ever produce consensus to merge ] to ], since no one is actually discussing it, but just discussing the quantity of policy pages generally. If you think this specific merge is important, and want to attract editors to discuss it, I suggest a new section and a specific highlighting of this discussion. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::All right, the discussion is continuing at ].--] (]) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] ''vs.'' ] ''and'' ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
] and ] are both themselves categories within ]; should '']'' be removed from ''Misplaced Pages talk:Three-revert rule''? — ] (]) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: WTF, since when do we have three different categories for policies. ] (]) 16:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== More! == |
|
|
|
|
|
What if you're making more than three reverts in good faith, like when a page was vandalized 4 times and you have to revert more than 3 times? --] (]) 22:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:The rule does not apply to reverts of vandalism (though please note that ]) ] ] 09:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The template message <nowiki>{{uw-3rr}} </nowiki> may help explain ... == |
|
|
|
|
|
Do I understand correctly that administrators look for this warning as a prerequisite to issuing a block? If so, should this introductory sentence be re-written to send the message that the template ''should'' (rather than ''may'') be used except in cases of vandalism or prior offenders? ] (]) 01:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So far no one has said I'm wrong. So, unless someone speaks up soon, I'll make this change. ] (]) 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::] is quite clear that warning is not required before blocks; this applies to all types of infractions, including 3RR. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thanks for the comment. Is fair to say that the "best practice" is to give a warning except in cases of vandalism or repeat offenders? ] (]) 02:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I wouldn't want to imply that an unwarned user should generally be warned instead of blocked even if they go past 3 reverts. I think at that stage, you are way past the point of sanity and a block is usually needed, even without a warning. But ideally, users should always be warned or reminded of the rule before they get to that point. So I think calling it "best practice" is going too far. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How about: ''While a warning is not required, before reporting a violation consider posting a <tt>{{]}}</tt> template message on the talk page of an editor who may not be aware that edit warring is a prohibited practice.'' ] (]) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am about to make this change. Any objections? ] (]) 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Not an entitlement" grammar == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should change that sections grammar. From: |
|
|
:''The three-revert rule limits ]. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a ] for edit warring, especially if they attempt to ] by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring.'' |
|
|
: |
|
|
:''The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a ] for the action. ] rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.'' |
|
|
To: |
|
|
:''The three-revert rule is a measure against ]. It does not grant editors to revert 3 times or less on a page in any 24-hour period. Editors who do not violate the rule are still subject to receive a ] for edit warring, especially if they attempt to ] by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring.'' |
|
|
: |
|
|
:''Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a ] for the action. ] rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.'' |
|
|
Does this sound good?. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 12:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't know; the original sounds better to me. Is there something you find problematic about the original? ] ] 02:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, but rather I am trying to make it better. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 04:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::OK. I admit I can't see how the new version is better than the old, and in some places seems worse to me (for example, the phrase "It does not grant editors to revert 3 times or less", which I don't think is even grammatical). Can you tell me why you want to make your changes? ] ] 01:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So the grammar is better. It would be better as it would sound more serious to someone reading the policy. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well, umm, actually, the grammar of the new version looks worse to me, not better. I really don't see anything ungrammatical in the original. ] ] 01:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Its not that there's a problem. It just could use some big improvement. I'll think of another grammar change. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 01:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I don't think it "could use some big improvement," it reads fine to me. Is there something unclear about it? ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::There's nothing unclear about it. What I am saying is that the grammar needs to changed in order to make the rule sound stronger and serious. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I can't say I agree with that; it already sounds perfectly serious to me. (Not to mention the real thing that demonstrates that we're serious about it is not how it's worded, but how it's enforced.) ] ] 06:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::(undent) I agree with Heimstern that the old version is better, and sounds quite serious. The proposed new version does have a grammar problem in at least two places. The phrase 'grant editors to revert' seems to be missing a word or two. The phrase 'are still subject to receive a block' should be fixed as well. Also the new wording 'Editors who do not violate the rule..' is worse than the old version, 'Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule..' The point of that phrase is that disruptive editing can still lead to a block even when the 3RR line is not formally crossed. If you leave out 'Disruptive' then the point is lost. ] (]) 05:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I like the old version. ] 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==3rr in middle of Arbitration Enforcement complaint?== |
|
|
As I was putting in an arbitration enforcement complaint I noticed the individual had just done a second 3RR and mentioned it without the diffs. Should I just include diffs there or should I bring it here? Thanks. ] (]) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Illegal in Florida? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] section states that one of the exceptions to 3RR is "Reverting the addition of content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida, such as child pornography and pirated software." Why is Florida singled out here? Why not any other state or country? <span style="color:#808080">]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">]</span></sup> 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Because the server are sitting in Florida and therefor Florida law applies. ] (]) 20:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think it would be prudent to state this in a footnote, as this is not common knowledge and as it stands now appears to be entirely random. <span style="color:#808080">]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">]</span></sup> 20:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Is it still true? I though the servers moved to San Francisco sometime last year? --] (]) 19:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==3RR violation by IP-hopping editor== |
|
|
What does one do when one encounters an anonymous IP editor who is engaging in a revert war, has violated 3RR, has been warned, but who has an ISP that repeatedly assigns new IP addresses to the editor? |
|
|
|
|
|
We have a situation at ] where a customer of PrairieWave Telecommunications (216.16.0.0-216.16.127.255) is engaging in a revert war. This customer has posted from multiple addresses in that IP range on ], signing with the name 'LogicMaster' each time, confirming that it's the same person doing the reverting. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:] is an option other than that, not much you can do. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reverting bot false-positives == |
|
|
|
|
|
If a bot makes a false positive (as it has done on the latest edit to ]), and reverts a non-vandalism edit for being vandalism, it seems reverting the bot's edit would not be an exception to 3RR. How should one go about suggesting this as an addition to the list of exceptions? ] (]) 15:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: If a bot mis-identifies the same edit as vandalism three times in 24 hours, there is something seriously wrong with said bot and it needs to be rewritten. ] (]) 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::What if it mis-identifies once or twice, and that pushes the reverting user over the 3RR limit? ] (]) 17:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: What reason did the user have for reverting the edit the first time (or two times)? ] (]) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Ones which don't fall into the list of exceptions - take your pick. I simply think it's a bad idea to discourage people from reverting bots' false positives just because they've already reverted a couple of times that 24 hours. ] (]) 18:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think adding that might just be a bit much instruction creep. It seems to me that it should be common sense that you can revert malfunctioning bots if they're truly malfunctioning (but also that the first thing to do is head for ANI and get someone to block said bot). ] ] 23:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
As I only know of one instance where said occurrence occurred, I think you may be right. I will say, though, that 3RR did stop me from reverting a bot's false positive. I had already reverted that page twice that day, and did not want to put myself in a position where I would not be able to remove unverifiable information from a BLP. However, as this is (as far as I know) an isolated incident, I think you're right. ] (]) 19:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: You could just revert it anyway. People make far too much fuss about rules here. The "ignore all rules" policy was put there for a reason, unfortunately one that's been largely forgotten. Any administrator that blocks you for fixing something is an idiot. ] (]) 20:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It would be more than idiocy, it would be wrong. 3RR is designed to prevent edit warring and encourage discussion instead; you can't edit war with a malfunctioning bot and you certainly can't discuss with it instead! (OK, you can talk to the bot owner to fix it but you see my point - this falls outside 3RR.) ] <sup>]</sup> 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge 3RR into Edit War? == |
|
|
{{discussion top}} |
|
|
It suddenly occurs to me that since 3RR has such a strong connection with Edit warring (]), it could well make sense to merge the two policies (it would be very easy - just make 3RR a section of ]). Put ] and ] next to each other: is it just me? Or has this been considered and rejected many times before? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:] is such a basic part of WP culture that I would hate to see it vanish. Yours, ] (]) 02:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Nothing to do with vanishing - it would still have the shortcuts and name and policy content. It would just place the rule in the context of the problem the rule is trying to prevent. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yeah, I tried this before and for some reason people just don't seem to be able to grasp that concept. I don't know why. ] (]) 04:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, having glanced at the two sites, I see nothing wrong with your idea, as you now explain it. How would you implement it? ] (]) 04:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Something like , I guess. ] (]) 04:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Add my wholehearted support too. I never understood why the previous merger was undone. --] (]) 12:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Because there wasn't the requisite discussion, vote, RfC, AN/I thread and arbitration case first, I guess. ] (]) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oh, Lord! Such bureaucracy! ] (]) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, people are entitled to disagree, but in this case I don't remember any good arguments being made against the merger. The ones I recall are "this wasn't discussed" (which soon ceased to be true), "3RR is not an editwarring issue" (patently false), "this is how I like it" and "it's always been like this". Arguments of the last two types make no impression on me at all. Can anyone do better this time? --] (]) 07:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I was just floating a balloon here, but it does seem to fly. In view of what you've said, we really should advertise this elsewhere, starting with ] and maybe on ]. Could someone do that please? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Just putting in my two cents that I'm in support of this, though if it goes through, the section of EW on 3RR should be very prominent (since, for better or for worse, it will probably remain our primary edit-warring block criterion for quite a while, if not for ever and ever amen). I think it fits the basic idea, which has become more and more accepted in the community, that 3RR is a subset of edit warring and is only one situation under which a person can be blocked for edit warring (albeit easily the most common). ] ] 13:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
: The fewer policy pages, the better. ] 14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I think they should remain separate because the ] page is more a "recommended principles/guidance" kind of page, while the ] is an actual enforceable policy. You count the reverts.. 1, 2, 3, 4, then something is done. So, something like ] needs to be really spelled out - especially for all those new editors that get hit with it. |
|
|
: Another reason not to merge the two is that they are both over a page long. Also, ] has a subsection called 3RR with a link to this article as the main article about 3RR. You would also have to make a redirect page so that ] would now go to ] because ] is heavily used. |
|
|
: --]|] 15:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, with Gurch's skilful merging I don't think the resulting page was excessively long; nor would it particularly matter that 3RR was a section redirect. But your first point is, I think, the wrong way round: it is a common ''misconception'' that 3RR is an absolute rule and that other edit warring advice is just empty waffle. Neither is true; you won't automatically get blocked for breaking 3RR, and you won't necessarily ''not'' get blocked for editwarring if you avoid breaking 3RR. For me that's another argument in favour of merging; not only does it compact the guidance, but it emphasizes the fact that 3RR isn't such a bright line as some people consider it to be. New editors that get hit with 3RR should be given the fuller picture (explanation of 3RR in the important wider context of editwarring).--] (]) 16:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: If ] is a "recommended principles/guideline" kind of page, why isn't it marked as a guideline rather than a policy? I'd happily accept that as an alternative to merging the two. ] (]) 17:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: You won't necessarily get a ticket for running a stop sign, either. But whether you ran or didn't run a stop sign is a pretty definite measurable event. Like 3RR. It is something definite that anyone can bring to the noticeboard. I've seen enough new editors walk into it (or be set up by a group of more experienced editors to walk into it). I think it needs to be well defined. |
|
|
::: To get blocked just for edit-warring is a bit harder to prove, and can depend a lot on the mediators and interpretation of events. |
|
|
::: That being said, if I'm the only editor that is against it, then I have no problem with this being tried and seeing what happens. Misplaced Pages is a group effort, after all. |
|
|
::: --]|] 17:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You're misunderstanding how this all works. When you get blocked (or whatever) under 3RR you are getting blocked ''for edit warring''. 3RR is just one common metric we use to judge whether edit warring has occurred. ] already says this, so merging would be simple. As it stands, having the full policy page for 3RR is overly bureaucratic and encourages gaming and lawyering. ]·] 18:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Trying to make a proper block for non-3RR edit warring is more stressful for the administrator, and gives more opportunity for back-talk from the person blocked and their allies, discussion on ANI etc. The administrator could be criticized for abusing their discretion, or having a vendetta against the person blocked. This seldom occurs for pure 3RR blocks, since they are easy to check. It is worth having a separate policy. ] (]) 18:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the need for separate pages. No one is proposing to do away with 3RR blocks. Have you actually read ], where it explicitly mentioned 3RR? ]·] 18:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::At present, ] has a section called ']' for which ] is the main article. When you block somebody, and given them ] as the reason, it is nice to have a reasonably short document for them to read. How does it improve matters to abolish the short document, so that you can only point them to the long document as the reason for the block? Gurch's from 25 November 2008 is reasonably short, but it omits two sections from ] which are helpful: ']' and '].' If you want to revisit a merge proposal that ] I suggest notifying all the participants in the previous discussion to see if you can persuade them. ] (]) 19:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I would suggest giving the violator a section link to the appropriate section, so they only have to read that one section. That's what seems to be done with violations of pretty much every other policy. ] (]) 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Stmrlbs: the blocking policy lists many different things you can be blocked for. They don't all have their own policy, because it's possible to explain multiple related concepts on the same page. (Though I admit difficult, with the amount of instruction creep that gets put into things). The edit warring page just needs to say "Edit warring is bad, because of <reasons>. You can be blocked if an administrator decides that what you're doing constitutes edit warring. Doing the following <3RR text> is always considered edit warring, but is not a prerequisite for a block". That's ''all''. And for the length argument, remember that I significantly rewrote both the three-revert rule and edit warring pages to remove the fluff and creep. If you combined the two existing pages in their entirety they still aren't as long as '''one''' of the pages was before I did that. ] (]) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I can see the advantages of having ] at both places. Having it with ] is good for the new wikipedian trying to learn their way around. It is sometimes disconcerting to have to jump around. But, to have it on a separate page is better for people that break the rule, and for administrators, and because this is one of the most "visible" violations, this perspective is also important. |
|
|
: I am not versed in wikipedia software, but in most programming languages, they will usually have a function that can "pull in" a chunk of code,or in this case, text. The code/text that is used multiple places is put in a "library" and called on the pages that need it. Therefore the changes (made to the library version) appear on all the pages that call the text. This way, you could have a 3RR page, separated, that calls in only the 3RR code/text, and also call it into the ] page. |
|
|
: This would be similar to the template function, but would have to be easy to update (just text). |
|
|
: If Misplaced Pages doesn't have this facility now, perhaps we, as a group, could request it. That way, everyone would be happy, no matter how they used it. |
|
|
: --]|] 01:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
With respect, the arguments made so far for having two separate pages don't amount to a hill of beans. Having 3RR as a section of WP:EW, with all content and shortcuts preserved, will have absolutely no effect on the policy or its application per se. It ''will'' make it clearer how and why 3RR relates to edit warring, particularly for newbies. Policy is far too complex: if we can't agree on such a trivial simplification, what ''can'' we agree on (apart fom ad hoc instruction creep, obviously)? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Anyway, here's a draft: ]. Comments? ] <sup>]</sup> 07:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Further draft=== |
|
|
Thanks, Rd. It got me thinking. A number of attempts have been made to merge these two over the years; good arguments have also been made on many occasions why they should ''not'' be merged. After some thought, there does seem a reasonable case for merging, but most proposals have concerns. I have tried to draft a merger of EW + 3RR that does cover both, better than the original two policies, and that is short and to the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
The merged suggestion contains everything of value (I think) within both policies; it is short and concise, and gives much firmer context to both edit warring generally and 3RR within that. It is short and simple enough to let speak for itself. Of possible interest: |
|
|
# A section describing what is/what isn't edit warring, which also replaces some lengthy explanations on 3RR |
|
|
# Rewritten description for 3RR that makes much clearer the relationship between 3RR and EW, and that 3RR acts as an outer bound but not a permissive limit, for edit warring. This approach should greatly reduce perceived conflict or lawyering potential between the two. |
|
|
# A lot of simplification where the originals were over-worded. |
|
|
# Short enough to be a good link for 3RR (a common concern in some past suggestions). |
|
|
# Easy to follow. |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
Thoughts? ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I don't think I care a great deal either way. As long as it is clear that any change made doesn't change policy (so that if the two texts prove to conflict, the new should be changed to agree with the old). Since this is presumably being done to make it easier for noobs to find the rules, should we ask some of them? ] (]) 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::How/where? eg VPP? ] <sup>]</sup> 22:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Should they be merged? Yes of course, they describe two aspects of the same thing. Which draft is better? Personally I prefer ] ](]) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Without having analysed the wording in detail, either draft would be fine by me. Is anyone claiming there's any difference of substance between the two?--] (]) 11:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd suggest mine has a better structure and better intro. I also find FT2's prose somewhat stiltedly "definitional", versus being more flowing explanatory prose. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Right, I've now notified everyone involved in the previous merger discussion and added it to ] as well. It had previously been announced at ] on 15 May (). ] <sup>]</sup> 13:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===RFC=== |
|
|
|
|
|
Should ] be merged into ]? Also there are two competing proposals for the merged page - ] and ]. 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I have not read all of the discussion, nor have I looked in detail at the two proposals, but from what I've seen I fully support FT2's proposed merger. This is something which has been needed for a long time. I'm not really ''opposed'' to Rd232's proposal either, but just from a brief read through I'd prefer the former. –] (] • ] • ]) 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Yes. 3RR is a special case of edit warring. It delineates a bright line that cannot be crossed. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I strongly support the merge, though since I have not examined both proposals in sufficient detail I have no preference. ] 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Support the merge, as 3RR is an essential part of our policy on edit-warring, not something separate. No particular preference between the two proposed versions.--] (]) 09:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I oppose the merge. Of the two drafts, I don't like Rd232's draft, I think it would lead to more confusion about the distinction. FT2's draft is good, about as good as I can expect a merged page would be; if this is done, I much prefer that draft. I'm concerned that the list of exceptions to 3RR will be taken as a list of exceptions to edit warring; they serve a very different purpose. Also, I think the point about edit warring being different from 3RR violations gets obscured by spending so much page space on the 3RR. It's also beneficial for the 3RR to be described a little differently on its own page, because that page is a reference point for a lot of people who are blocked under the 3RR and it really helps to have stronger wording. All the subtlety required is boiled down to the phrase "]" which is very accurate but easy to miss or misunderstand. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm not sure what you're suggesting - sounds like you want to describe 3RR in different ways on two different pages, so we can refer people to the "stronger" version to prevent them finding out about the "weaker" interpretation. Anyway, people shouldn't be coming here ''after'' being blocked for 3RR (unless they've had warnings and ignored them, I suppose). They should come here on being warned, and then they shouldn't be given the impression that all they have to do to avoid being blocked for edit-warring is to avoid stepping over this particular bright line. (Not that it is really a bright line, since it has so many muddy exceptions.)--] (]) 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's a bit hard to explain. Basically, the 3RR is a bright line rule, which means that its explanation should primarily be written as if it's a hard-and-fast, simplistic rule, with certain specific exceptions. Its relationship to the ] policy is important but secondary to understanding what the bright line rule actually is. I don't think we can really explain the 3RR that way in the context of the page on edit-warring. Before or after the user is blocked, the important thing is that the page on the rule gives a clear rule. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"I don't think we can really explain the 3RR that way in the context of the page on edit-warring." Why ever not? As far as I can see both my and FT's proposals are pretty clear in this regard. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't. I think it's much clearer the way it is. Both proposals fail because they of necessity present the 3RR in the context of how it relates to edit warring, which is a distraction I think will damage understanding and enforcement. The ''value'' of the 3RR to the community is its absoluteness: do not go this far or you'll be blocked; it defends admins' judgment because of its simplicity and directness, and it is easy for all users to understand. Edit warring is much more complicated. The 3RR is practically unique on Misplaced Pages, which has almost no unambiguous rules, and is definitely unique among behavior guidelines. Is it so bad to have a page fully devoted to explaining the rule, with no discussion of the subtleties of when someone is edit warring and when they aren't? ] after all. I'm not saying this wouldn't be an improvement on the ] page, just leave the ] page and redirect alone. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::the proposals "of necessity present the 3RR in the context of how it relates to edit warring". Yes that's the idea; and I disagree that this is a distraction. Yes, edit warring is slightly more nebulous (I'm not sure it's actually hard to understand...), that's why we have 3RR as a metric. But we absolutely will still have that metric to back up blocks made; but the context of explaining edit warring will make the purpose and meaning of it clearer, and ultimately, hopefully, people will understand both it and edit warring better. Ultimately, both 3RR and the injunction against edit warring are there to encourage discussion. Merging the two pages can only make that clearer. PS ] has no relevance for policy pages; the need to keep policy as simple and clear as possible for newbies in particular does. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
* I agree with the comments above supporting a merger. Putting 3RR in context would help users (who are blocked or receive a warning) and possibly admins. 3RR is not a separate bright-line rule. If it were, it could be enforced by software rather than admins. Instead, 3RR creates a presumption within the context of edit warring. Fewer than three reverts is presumed not to be edit warring, but might be, and so might result in a block. More than three reverts is presumed to be edit warring, but might not be, and so might not result in a block. Ultimately, the decision to block comes down to whether there is an edit war, not the precise number of reverts. Of the proposals so far, I am flexible and suggest considering Gurch's original .] (]) 17:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**I agree that 3RR should not be regarded as a rule above which blocking is inevitable. However convenient it is to have something an admin can fall back on to justify a block, I have seen too many blocks of well intentioned contributors that only lead to further estrangement. If people acknowledge they've gone too far, it's enough. The block is then punishment, not prevention. If what we need to do is prevent a war, it makes no sense either to let it get to the 3RR stage. The proposal that fits my view best is Rd232s. FT2's, in my opinion, is too dogmatic. ''']''' (]) 02:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**Thanks DGG, and if I may I'd like to offer a follow-up question to those who call 3RR a bright line: would you support transferring its enforcement from admins to software instead? If not, why not?] (]) 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Reporting could easily be automated, and most of the exceptions could be as well. The cases where repeated reverts arise due to vandalism reversion are not uncommon, and a few other exceptions may not be easy to detect. For that reason, although automated ''reporting'' by bot is sensible, I'd be likely to oppose proposals for software that allowed blocking without case by case human review of the edits and reverts involved. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 23:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks FT2. That could actually improve both the 3RR policy _and_ enforcement. 3RR would become an automatic report, raising a flag for an admin to determine (1) whether there is an edit war and (2) if so, how to handle each participant. As an added bonus, the software could alert the user in advance of previewing/saving the third revert or related edit, thus automating the warning process and preserving admin attention for situations where the users have already been warned.] (]) 01:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: If that were done, the new model would be to warn users that a bot patrols for edit warring, using 3+ reverts in 24 hours as its guideline to report the matter for admin review. There would be 2 sections - situations with 3 reverts, and those with 4+. Users might be warned at 2-3 reverts that it looks like they might be edit warring, and to read the ] page; if they are, and especially if they revert 4+ times in 24 hrs, they are very likely to be blocked. I think that would be a good idea to run by the community. My only question is how easily software can recognize a "revert" in the sense we would. That's a technical question, but the more I think about it, the more complex it seems. For example, it would have to recognize lines re-added or removed in an edit compared to past re-adds or removes, may need to drag up past edits and perform diff calculations for much of the recent changes feed, and might be quite data and computationally intense. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 10:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Erm, this is getting so way off base from the section topic that I'd appreciate it if the discussion was moved to a different section. Particularly since the idea may have some merit; even if a bot could only recognise obvious reverts, it could in these situations remind people to engage in discussion, plus bring flashpoints to community attention. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I agree. In this discussion, the software idea is simply to address what people perceive as the useful function of a bright line rule. It isn't necessary or helpful here to work out every line of code, and besides if people are trying to evade a software warning then they presumably know its contents already and their evasion is evidence of intentional edit warring.] (]) 21:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*I support the merger, as it just ''make sense''. I like FT's version the best, as it puts less emphasis on 3RR. Rd's version, in my opinion, takes up too much of the page, making the new page seem all about 3RR. '''<font face="times new roman">]]</font>''' 11:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*:I think that's mostly because FT put headings in the Overview section. I agree that's helpful, but absent that the differences are limited mostly to the intro and the style. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Please go right ahead and update it, if it can be improved. This isn't an either/or competition, it's a collaboration. If you think you can fix or improve it, or have any suggestions in the discussion, go for it. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 19:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I'm not ''sure'' if you mean I should update my proposal... but I actually tried doing that yesterday (putting headings in the Overview section) and got in a complete mess and gave up. So in a spirit of collaboration :) I've updated my proposal by nicking your Overview section and some other bits. What do you think? Isn't this structure clearer, and the short intro better? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: For sure I meant update it. Make it the best it can get. Off to read it now! ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 08:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''oppose''' This would cause more confusion than the current system. The 3RR is a statement about "stop signs" -- a clear violation of which can be seen, and should not be as much a "judgement call" as it sometimes appears. "Edit war" however is more like a "driving at excessive speed" and is, by its nature, a judgement call. If we try installing a bright line on edit war, in order to make it parallel with 3RR, we should make the bright line first. If we do not install a bright line standard on "edit war", I suggest that a mixed policy page will not work. ] (]) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*:With respect, that's totally confused. 3RR ''is'' the bright line for edit warring (as discussed above). To correct your metaphor: edit warring is driving at unsafe speed; 3RR is the official speed limit. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::...except that 3RR is not in reality a bright line, because compliance with the rule can and does sometimes result in a "3RR" block. You're not the first to think of the speed limit analogy, but admins reject it because, I've been told, ordinary-world rules don't and shouldn't apply on Misplaced Pages. Describing Collect's argument as "totally confused" may be accurate, but does not solve the problem if admins follow the same (il)logic. In other words, to extend your metaphor, traffic tickets are being written (and upheld) for exceeding the posted speed limit where in fact that did not occur. That was a reason for merging the policies. When observed facts contradict a theory, the theory must be adjusted: while 3RR might sound like a bright line in theory, actual enforcement proves it isn't.] (]) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think you're over-complicating things. 3RR blocks where 3RR hasn't been breached are just edit warring blocks where the admin has been careless or lazy (in failing to be precise). ] <sup>]</sup> 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't see that this merge would eliminate the bright line, just place it in the context of the greater principle that motivates the bright line. ] ] 08:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*I really like this idea. I think that 3RR is over emphasized, simply because it is easier to understand and enforce. A merge would help put 3RR in context within the much more important edit warring guideline. We'd find a lot less people feeling that they're entitled to three reverts a day. — ] ] 23:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*Yes. Lower level, harmful edit warring too often skirts the handy, bright line of 3rr. ] (]) 12:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*<s>'''Oppose''', these are distinct concepts. 3RR is a brightline rule, like a speed limit, and removing it gives too much scope for argument of inconsistent treatment. ] (]) 08:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)</s> Sorry, misunderstood this. '''Support''' Rd232's version. ] (]) 09:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*Support - i think that by merging it with the edit warring page we can have less emphasis on 3RR... users can and should be blocked for edit warring even if they havent crossed the 'bright line' and should KNOW that this can happen... if they are merged they are more likely to read it all, rather than just the 3RR section... ] (]) 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Strongly oppose merger''' 3rr is a hard-set community endorsed rule. 3rr is a special electric fence rule that reduces edit-warring more than anything else on the WP pages. It is special and should remain separate. Edit-warring is a mechanism for securing a certain version of content, a mechanism mostly disapproved of but not always. Edit-warring is an open concept, the details of which have never been community endorsed, and per Stifle too much room for inconsistent treatment. Merging 3rr is in any case the first step towards its abolition, blurring the lines so much so that it is easier to block for any content dispute. Such a development will favour more experienced and better connected users over others, and we'll have another wikipedia conduct policy the enforcement of which will depend purely on how many buddies you've got, not on what you're bringing to the pedia and how you're acting. ] (<small>]</small>) 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**Merging the two pages has nothing to do with abolishing the rule; I don't know where that concern sprung from. It's only about clear presentation. --] (]) 14:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*** As I hinted, it not so much about what people intend by this change, but what might/will happen as a result. Policy pages are highly malleable. In the case of 3RR's existence, the only sure way for it to survive as a policy is for it to have its own page clearly distinguished and independent from others. ] (<small>]</small>) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
****"highly malleable" is a fair exaggeration - substantial changes to key policy pages do get scrutinised. And abolishing 3RR would be a very substantial change. In general, I think we have to have a certain amount of trust in ourselves as a community, and shouldn't prevent policy rationalisation to fend off a hypothetical abolition of a rule which is now strongly embedded in the WP culture. Rd232/] (]) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Oppose''' Keep it simple. The rule is "don't edit war". Edit wars don't necessarily need to breach the 3RR: it can be a slow burner, there can be many editors involved, etc. What we want to get out there is that message: don't war. The 3RR is separate. We don't want to confuse people that edit warring mean breaching the 3RR. We don't want to give the impression that you can revert twice and get your mates in to revert after your "free reverts" have run out. Or 3 editors against 1 saying, we didn't breach 3RR so he's the one warring. Edit warring is what we want to emphasise. The 3RR is not edit warring. We don't want to confuse the two. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 00:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Actually, that sounds like an argument in support of merger, or supporting the software idea discussed above (changing 3RR from an independent rule enforced unevenly by admins into an automated warning not to edit-war).] (]) 06:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's how it sounded to me too. There seems to be some inconsistency among those opposing the merger: the Deacon is opposed because it might underemphasize 3RR; RA seems to be opposed because it might overemphasize it. Personally I don't see that either is true; but putting the two on one page emphasizes the fact that 3RR ''is'' a part of the way we deal with edit warring, and ''not'' something separate as RA implies.--] (]) 14:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Please read my comments above. Incidentally, there is no party line for opposes here. Everyone makes their own arguments. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' the concept. Final implementation could be problematic, but they are both interrelated policies; I see no reason not to ]. Emphasizing 3RR in the lead would be prudent instead of burying it within the text. Beyond that, best of luck! <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' Makes sense to put in context. As long as the ] shortcut works and points to a clear and concise subsection --] (]) 07:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Strongly linked but is useful to have them seperate. ] (]) 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**Useful why? The shortcuts will still work, and go directly to the merged 3RR section. ] (]) 17:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' I was recently blocked for 3RR on the grounds of reverting a user twice, and then reverting several unhelpful anonymous editors, each a separate incident that went unchallenged. I had no violated the spirit of 3RR, and hopefully this will keep it in perspective: it only applies to edit wars. ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*: No: the merge, should it occur, won't change any policy ] (]) 22:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Also, if you think you were improperly blocked, there are channels for getting your block peer-reviewed; we don't amend policy with the aim of preventing malice or negligence in future administrative actions. ] ] 17:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*::"hopefully this will keep it in perspective" - i.e. not a change in policy per se, but an improvement in application of it by more closely linking the policy with its aims. ] (]) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Exactly, Disembrangler. It's impossible to make this merge - to give 3RR a new context - without changing (the application of) the policy.--] <sup>(])</sup> 20:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong support''' as I am in favor of any tendency to roll back fragmentation in the policy. Consider that the three-revert rule could be summarized in a single line added to the ]. The more parsimonious we make the rules, the easier they are to understand and follow. ] ] 17:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{discussion bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Conclusion === |
|
|
After reading over the above discussion (which, might I add was carried out rather well) I have determined that there is ] for the merger and have ]. In doing so I have used ]'s version as it seems the most widley accepted. As always there will be small changes that will need to be made, and I encourage people to carry out non-controversial ones as needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There's was no consensus here for that. Per BRD, I've reverted. Would've done so sooner if I'd seen it. ] (<small>]</small>) 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm actually kind of opposed to merging 3RR and EW. 3RR is hard security, whilst EW is ]. Next we'll be merging ]. --] (]) 01:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Yes, the merger weakens a hard rule in favour of a soft one. It's supposed to strengthen admin discretion against the power of the brainless inflexible rule, but no such inflexibility exists even now. Admins already have all the discretion they need. fLike it or not, our famous electric fence rule was agreed by the community in a huge community poll and shouldn't be replaced by a proposal cobbled together and voted on by a few users on a low traffic talk page just because slightly more supporters turned up than opposers. The objections to this weren't addressed, and given the number of opposes I find it hard to see what definition of "consensus" in the English language was being referred to by Tiptoety. ] (<small>]</small>) 01:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Regardless, as a non-neutral party, you can't just undo a close by an outsider. Along those lines, anyone would be able to filibuster using the "no consensus" excuse anytime they disagree with a result. ] ] 02:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Hey. We don't determin freedom to edit articles based on straw polls on talk pages, and an "outsider" sticking close tags on a discussion doesn't constitute a "decision" anyone is expected to follow. Besides, Tiptoety isn't an outsider, having expressed an opinion on the matter before. He indeed was the one who moved WP:AN/3 to WP:EW. I too if I wanted could have refrained from opposing and just closed the discussion as no consensus if we took "opportunistic closes" more seriously that talk contributions. ] (<small>]</small>) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::<s>"Opportunistic closes"? I see someone has forgotten how to assume good faith of the other side.</s> Anyway, I've mentioned this at ANI, mainly so we can hopefully get some closure on this dispute. I can see a case against this being considered consensus here (consensus is a tricky thing, since after all we're supposed weight arguments based on groundedness in policy, which people are likely to disagree on), so more opinions should help clarify the situation. ] ] 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Stop trying to provoke confrontation, Heimstern. ] is not a weapon to beat your opponents, and stirring up enmity just makes actual consensus ten times more difficult to achieve. :) Cheers, ] (<small>]</small>) 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::See, I took your comments as confrontational in assuming opportunistic motives of others. Based on your comments here, I'm going to assume I misinterpreted this and strike my comments. You're also right that continuing this particular discussion is going to make consensus harder to achieve, so I'd support us stopping now and seeing what outside opinions we get. ] ] 03:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Yes. Many users above have decided it would be tidier or of unexpained benefit to merge these. There are however serious objections to this, some of which have already been raised. It would be a good start for the proponents, instead of discussing how to go about it and ignoring these objections, explain the concrete benefits they believe will be derived in line with our goals of creating and sustaining a high-quality encyclopedia. A clear conversation with this done, matched with repetition or expansion of objections, would be how a decent decision about this would be arrived at. More widespread participation would also be useful. We'll see if this is done, or if the more headstrong proponents decide to conduct the argument by reverting. It would be a bit of an irony if this is how these policies were merged. ;) ] (<small>]</small>) 04:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:From my completely outside view, it looks to me like there is quite a strong consensus to merge the two pages. And while it ''may'' have been wrong of Tiptoety to close discussion (I will hold doubt of the claim that he has spoken on this subject before until presented with evidence), it was wrong of you completely to revert to the older versions as an involved participant. I reverted your reversion before I saw that you had indeed brought your concerns to this talk page, so I won't revert a second time, but I would ask that we see even further input and perhaps a larger RFC held before reversion of this version. --] (]) 05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Whilst I have been strongly critical at ] of DoP's methods, I don't think another revert was a good idea. I would rather see a proper RFC and get this settled unambiguously. I confess I don't like the idea of the merger but I also recognise that consensus above favours it. However, not many people watchlist policy pages and I would like to see a discussion in which the wider community could feel they had had the opportunity to participate. ] (]) 05:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"I would like to see a proper RFC". What was improper about the previous one? Rd232/] (]) 06:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ah, my error, I didn't notice the RFC heading in the middle that came in half way through. I'm now wondering how I missed this in this RFC list but that's my own problem so sort out. Regardless, I still disapprove of the quick-fire reverting by both sides; kind of makes a mockery of the advice given to editors in more normal disputes. ] (]) 15:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What it makes a mockery of is this page itself and of ]. I'm quite sure that after discussion should come more discussion, instead of a second BRD cycle, because the 2nd cycle does look like an edit war to those who expected that the pages should be more or less done having major changes made to them (coughmecough). When I see a "Oh, you're supposed to be the one to Discuss" in the edit summary (somewhat snarkily, I might add), what else am I to think but "that isn't how things work"...? As I said, I'll not revert again, if someone really must feel the need to hit the revert button, but I think the likelihood is high that someone else outside of the initial discussion will revert also, and then it really is an edit war (if not between two specific people). --] (]) 18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)<br />Further, CIreland, it was a proper RFC, if perhaps not a large or gigantic one. It was advertised in all the right places; notification was placed on both VPP and CENT, as well I suspect the main RFC page. --] (]) 18:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
NB: cf ]. ] (]) 06:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, there's nothing wrong with close tags. I'm just being a bit mean to call on ] so soon after closure. ] sucks that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
Note that ] is often more powerful than ], because hard security is brittle. By analogy: Merging 3RR and EW is like trying to merge diamond (hard, brittle) and nanotube wire (flexible, strong). Sure, both are forms of carbon (both policies deal with edit wars), but that doesn't mean they're quite the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
One thing about hard security systems is that they are game-able. How many times have we seen people game 3rr? But the same can not be said for the soft security approach of no edit wars. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would be quite sad if people would think that the soft and hard security approaches to wikipedia were somehow the same thing. I think that that is the wrong way for a wiki to go. --] (]) 11:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have been saying for years the pages should be merged. EW is supposed to be a hard security policy, and having them separate only leads to the impression that it is not. EW is not a general maxim for editing like ]; EW defines edit warring and says people who follow that path may be blocked. The issue is not gaming 3rr, it is gaming the edit warring policy, which is too often ignored if there is not a 3rr violation. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 11:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Conversely, I have seen blocks for 3rr that were not edit wars, but rather reverts of unhelpful GF contributions. These policies are meant to do the same thing (stop and prevent edit wars), and this is more important than the hard/soft approach. ] <sup>(])</sup> 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, as I suspected, the more hard-headed of supporters went and reverted and, as I also expected, cried indignation. With the pages set on their preferred version, I'm experienced enough to know that in this position there is no incentive for the proponents actually to discuss it meaningfully, and thus further conversation would be pointless. So I'll just congratulate these admins on their edit-war assisted coup! Hope the irony isn't lost! ;) Don't be surprised if in a few years the 3RR policy isn't even there. It'll certainly be weaker, per comments like "I'm all for scrapping 3RR and blocking anybody who uses the revert button in bad faith" -- which is the kind of ideology that is the real force behind this development. Cheers, ] (<small>]</small>) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No the irony is not lost, but sarcasm does not help, either. 3RR will still be there, but I think it was beginning to dominate the concept of edit warrring. An edit war (like consensus!) is not a number (3), but rather a mood of hostility instead of cooperation. ] <sup>(])</sup> 15:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Deacon of Pndapetzim, who are you referring to when you say "''So I'll just congratulate these admins on their edit-war assisted coup!"''? I know that I have not edit warred over the content, nor have I asked any one of the two other editors to do so (and only one of those two is an administrator, making me conclude you are talking about me as well). To be frank, the only person who reverted twice was yourself. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm hardheaded? I'm also a supporter? Wot? I don't see my name in that list of names up there in the RFC... D: --] (]) 18:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Spam == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can Spam be also treated as an exeption??? There are some very persistent spammers that don't stop adding things such as: |
|
|
|
|
|
''fsdnfjkskghsgjdsjfgd'' |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's not spam, that's simply vandalism. Although it is more likely the same as: Can I really type here? ] ] 19:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== easily == |
|
|
The three revert rule can be easily avoided. All you have to do is create another account before your third revert and nobody will know its you. thanks <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">] </font> <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;"> ] </font> 09:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:On the contrary, when a fresh, new account shows up to continue a revert war started by another user, that tends to raise eyebrows and lead to sockpuppet investigations. Just for the record, this is a forbidden use of alternate accounts and would draw even worse consequences than breaking 3RR on one account would. ] ] 10:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 3RR userspace exemption == |
|
|
|
|
|
The 3RR userspace exemption currently says |
|
|
<blockquote>Reverting edits to your own user space, provided that doing so does not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.</blockquote> |
|
|
I think it might be more accurate to say |
|
|
<blockquote>''Reverting edits to your own user space (as long as you are respecting the ] guidelines and not restoring material covered by a 3RR content type exemption).'' Footnote: 3RR does not apply to your own userspace, but this does not give you the right to ignore ] guidelines, and you may be blocked for repeatedly restoring material which violates them. This includes in particular material for which others may claim exemption from 3RR, including copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.</blockquote> ] <sup>]</sup> 11:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well since no-one seemed to mind and it was just a clarification, I've been bold and done it. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps this is clearer? ''Reverting edits to your own user space within the ] guidelines, and not violating any copyright or other specific rules concerning content, including those in ]. '' As soon as we enumerate specific rules, it will get wikilaywered. I do not particularly like footnotes. ] (]) 12:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:No I don't think that's clearer. The first sentence of the footnote is too long to have in that list (I think) but important clarification. Enumerating the rules (second sentence) is less important, since that's covered by reference to the "3RR content type exemption" in the body. I could live with dropping the footnote entirely, but I'd rather keep it and I'd definitely prefer not to change the body text bit in the way you suggest. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposed amendment: applies only to edit wars == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the interest of full disclosure, I was recently blocked for violating 3RR. Not because I had reverted a specific person, or side in an argument, more than three times - I had done that only twice. But I had furthermore reverted non-vandalism but unhelpful anonymous edits. Each was a separate incident, and the anons left no edit summaries, talk page posts, or attempts to revert me. I propose that such noncontroversial reverts, at least from different anons, should not qualify as a 3RR violation. Failing that, I would like to know why 4 anonymous users are more important than a veteran contributor.--] <sup>(])</sup> 22:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Generally, I think it is good to have 3RR as an absolute limit (in the interest of full disclosure, I was the blocking admin). The discussion in the past has generally been that exception creep would become confusing. 4 anonymous users are not more important than a veteran contributor, in my opinion ] (]) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::But you're missing my point: Firstly, although I am a little bitter over the incident, I am not after revenge (although perhaps closure) but rather the improvement of the policy for future incidents. My point was that an editor could hypothetically revert four separate anons without engaging in an edit war (granted, I wasn't quite as blameless). Now ideally there would be more than one person watching the article, but does 3RR compel that editor to let an unhelpful edit stand because of previous, unrelated edits by other users? I think we can fairly clearly exempt reverts of IPs except where they resemble edit wars (]).--] <sup>(])</sup> 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) I can't see what workable change could be made to prevent this. (b) arguing about the relative merits of different editors is problematic. (c) it makes no sense to apply 3RR so strictly that one competent editor can't undo a range of unhelpful-but-well-intentioned contributions from multiple inexperienced editors in a manner which doesn't resemble edit warring. (d) any proposed change should focus on the nub of the matter, which is that 3RR in spirit and common sense applies to the same issue on the same page, not unrelated ones. The letter of the rule says otherwise, but AFAIK this is widely ignored in favour of focussing on what the rule is trying to achieve, which is to prevent edit warring. IMO the reason the rule is written so strictly is to prevent gaming the system / arguing about what constitutes "related issues", etc. Common sense in considering the spirit of the rule and the spirit of ] (i.e. what's best for the encyclopedia) allows admins to do that in a way that a policy rule doesn't. I'm not sure that any feasible change to the policy rule can improve on that, but I'm open to suggestions. Rd232/] (]) 22:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Perhaps the following can be added to Exceptions, Exceptions by content type: "Reverting unrelated noncontroversial edits. Edits are not related if they are made by different users to different parts of the article. Edits are noncontroversial if their author does not defend them with an edit summary, does not revert to a prior version, does not reinstate them after being reverted, ''and'' does not defend them on a talk page (article or user). Edits must be both unrelated ''and'' noncontroversial." Most anons do not leave edit summaries; most edit war-ers do. The proposed category of edits would not themselves be reverts (further eliminating the potential for abuse), and so reverting such edits would not count (unless the revert was reverted, in which case both users have 1 revert). I have italicized "and" to highlight that, to be exempt, an edit must comply with ''all'' of the requirements listed. Is this actionable?--] <sup>(])</sup> 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's a bit complexifying. How about clarifying somehow that since 3RR is intended to limit edit warring, reverting edits unrelated to a particular dispute should be considered separately (effectively, a separate 3RR count for each dispute on a page, rather than on each page). That might go into the bright line as "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts ''relating to a single issue'' on a single page within a 24-hour period", but it's probably better left for the text. ] (]) 13:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the events described above support the earlier discussion of converting 3RR from a standalone policy to an automated warning not to edit-war. Crossing the 3RR line would invite admin attention, including possibly blocking editor(s) found to be culpable. Evading the 3RR line, e.g. by sock puppets or other means, would be evidence of intentional misconduct justifying a longer block. Identifying an edit war, and more importantly identifying who is at fault, requires human judgment; counting to three does not require judgment, but does not answer the essential questions about edit warring.] (]) 08:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think I'm following you... If a hypothetical user can violate 3RR without edit warring by reverting four anons, and plenty of people edit war with fewer than four reverts, 3RR doesn't do a very good job, right? Unfortunately, entrusting these distinctions to common sense does not always work. I agree that this depends, to an extent, on the result of the above poll. My goal, though, is to be pragmatic: to create a reasonable exemption that cannot be abused in edit wars.--] <sup>(])</sup> 13:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Umm, the software idea is simply to automate what people consider a "bright line" rule, but make it a warning and a flag, reserving enforcement decisions for case-by-case judgment of edit warring.] (]) 10:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: The software idea will go nowhere. Try reviewing, say, the current set of reports and see how many of them could have been handled by a 4-identical-reverts bot. My guess is that the answer is likely zero ] (]) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The software idea has merit but is tangential to this discussion and besides ]'s objection above does not include any examples. However, ]'s misunderstanding is easy to answer without venturing too far afield. First, it's 3RR not 4RR. Second, before saving or previewing a revert, the software would simply check how many times you've clicked revert within the last 24 hours. If it's more than once, you'd see the automatic warning. If you save the revert anyway, it would raise a flag that you've crossed the 3RR line, which might indicate the presence of an edit war meriting admin attention. Software can't solve everything, but neither can 3RR. As with the merger proposals, the goal is simply to provide better information sooner, reducing arbitrary (or apparently arbitrary) and inconsistent enforcement of what is thought to be a bright line rule.] (]) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Archive and redirect? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Because of the forced merger above into ], this page is no longer in the wiki-link world. We should probably then, when all ongoing discussions are resolved, archive this page, and redirect it to ]. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
