Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:31, 16 March 2011

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

The contents of the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule page were merged into Misplaced Pages:Edit warring. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archived polls for Three-revert rule
Protect or slow down editing 24 hour bans for revert wars Revert wars considered harmful Three revert rule enforcement
Archives of Talk:Three-revert rule
August 2004 – September 2005 October 2005 – May 2006 June 2006 – August 2006 September 2006 – February 2007 February 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – August 2008 September 2008 – July 2009 August 2009 –
Archived polls for Talk:Edit war
September 2003 – August 2007 September 2007 – December 2008

Removal

A recent edit removed the following sentence: "Though they may violate the general rule against edit-warring for other reasons, four reverts during a period greater than 24 hours does not violate the three-revert rule."

I can sympathize with the desire to tighten up the phraseology, but am concerned about this particular removal. Here's why....

The page says, "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). This says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Notice that this quoted sentence doesn't explain that the rule says nothing else; it says what the rule includes but does not say that this is ALL the rule includes. In other words, the page right now says that a person will automatically get blocked for 3rr if there are more than three reverts within 24 hours, but the page doesn't explicitly say that a person will not get automatically blocked for 3rr in other circumstances. So, I think the sentence that was removed is important and will prevent a common misunderstanding. (Incidentally, I have retired as a named editor, but occasionally edit now as an IP.)166.137.138.205 (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, responding to your note on my talk page. I don't think I understand your point, sorry. You may be pointing to a general confusion on the page, which I agree is unfortunate, and comes from having merged the 3RR page into this page. So we currently say: you may be blocked for 3RR, and you may be blocked for not-3RR.

In reality, only people violating 3RR are blocked, unless the edit warring is a slow edit war, or in some other ways sustained, or 3RR-gaming. So the policy as currently written is a little inconsistent, and does not describe actual practice. SlimVirgin 06:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The sentence I'm urging you to reinsert is this: "Though they may violate the general rule against edit-warring for other reasons, four reverts during a period greater than 24 hours does not violate the three-revert rule."

Do you think this quoted sentence is redundant, or alternatively do you think it is incorrect? I do not think it is redundant or incorrect. Instead it helps to define what 3RR is.

Before I retired as a named editor, I was blocked for "3RR" due to making four reverts during a period slightly greater than 24 hours, when an editor filed a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard. I was quite irate about it at my user talk page. In a subsequent ArbCom proceeding regarding a completely unrelated set of articles, ArbCom looked at that irate comment I had made, and used it to justify rejecting my request that a sanction be lifted. So, I retired. This is what others' misunderstanding and abuse of 3RR has done to me personally, and I would like to spare others the hassle by making this page 100% clear about what 3RR is and what it is not. The sentence you removed did that, I believe.166.137.138.205 (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see how your experiences support the sentence you want inserted. As you've found, you can be blocked for making excess reverts without breaking the letter of 3RR, and it isn't greatly important that you were blocked for edit-warring generally rather than under 3RR specifically, so it would seem not just redundant but potentially misleading to insert a sentence emphasizing that particular (still likely blockable) behaviour is not technically a breach of 3RR. --Kotniski (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not blocked for any form of edit-warring other than 3RR. There is a reason for that. Getting a user quickly and easily blocked is much more efficient via 3RR than via a more general accusation of edit-warring; i.e. 3RR is automatic, surrounding circumstances such as justifications or the behavior of other editors need not be considered, and the process moves much faster. The characterization at this page of 3RR as a "bright line" is extremely deceptive, if you want to allow use of the 3RR process even when there are no more than 3 edits within 24 hours.

Retirement is enjoyable, and editors who are trapped by this phony use of 3RR will enjoy retirement as well, so it's not the end of the world if the deception continues.

The article where this happened to me was Clarence Thomas. An editor had inserted material from an opinion piece titled "Rodent in Robes". I removed it, with an explanation at the article talk page. Subsequently, the same editor again inserted material from an opinion piece by the same author that appeared in the same publication. Since this was a BLP, I almost removed it immediately, but for greater caution waited past the 24 hours. At which point I was blocked for 3RR, and a remark I made about that block at my user talk page was later seized upon by ArbCom in a completely unrelated case, to extend sanctions for (apparently) the rest of my life. All because of the obviously deceptive material at this page. Cheers.166.137.138.186 (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Making a fourth revert just outside the 24-hour period in order to game the policy is indeed seen as a 3RR violation, and people are often blocked for it. SlimVirgin 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why on Earth not say so at this page, instead of deceiving editors into thinking that 3RR is truly a "bright line" rule?

The sentence that you removed has made clear for many months that 3RR is not to be used in the way you describe. However, if the consensus is to use 3RR in the way you describe, then please clarify at this page that it is not entirely a "bright line" rule.

The admin who used 3RR this way in my case had previously said it was not to be used that way. Indeed, the fact that a person waits past 24 hours to revert is often seen as a good-faith effort to carefully follow the rules. In my case, I assure you that I was editing in good faith, just like this editor was. Anyway, please adjust this page to reflect whatever the policy really is. Thanks.166.137.136.210 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you made 4 reverts in 24:01, rather than 24 hours, was presumably taken as clear evidence of an intent to game the policy. The fact that you still don't get it, and are seeking to amend a fundamental site policy to retroactively justify your behavior, suggests that the blocking admin made the right call. The policy is already clear that 3 reverts is not an entitlement, and that people may be blocked even if they don't cross the bright line. Most editors get that when they read the policy. Those who don't are obsessing over the letter of the law to justify their blatant disregard for its spirit. I don't think tweaking the wording is going to fix that problem. MastCell  18:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The obsession is yours. You follow me wherever I go, and have filed more failed administrative requests against me than I ever imagined possible. MastCell is the editor who successfully requested the 3RR block against me for removing the material described above (from the Clarence Thomas article).

This policy was perfectly clear until October 28, when it was made unclear. This policy now says that 3RR is a bright-line rule, even though you want to block people merely for coming close to that line. If you want to do so, then give fair warning in this policy, instead of saying it's a bright line rule. Do you know what a bright line rule is?

An editor once told me, "This is Misplaced Pages, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals.". So now you're discounting what I say because of actual personal experience?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR policy has been described as a bright line for as long as I remember. I've clarified that gaming the system with a 4th revert just outside 24 hours is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation too. SlimVirgin 19:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit

If 3RR blocks are appropriate even when the fourth revert occurs after 24 hours, then the policy should not call 3RR a "bright line rule" (unless the purpose is to be deceitful and trap unsuspecting editors). Will anyone object if I come out of retirement to clarify in the policy that 3RR is not a "bright line rule"?166.137.136.69 (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the point of the phrase "bright-line rule" is to say that if you cross the line, you must expect to be blocked. It does not mean that users who don't cross the line won't be blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The term bright line rule is extremely clear. If you want to allow users to be blocked for 3RR even if the fourth edit is after 24 hours, then it is not a bright line rule. The policy right now is very misleading. Again, I propose to delete that it is a bright line rule, and instead say that if you cross the line, you must expect to be blocked, but users who don't cross the line may be blocked for 3RR as well. Does anyone object?166.137.138.78 (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I for one certainly don't object, in that I've never liked the phrase, anyway. In part because actually, even clear violations of 3RR are up to admin discretion whether to block or not (I've more than once refused to block an editor who had reverted four times in 24 hours because the other editor in the dispute had reverted three times and I didn't believe in blocking only one when both were edit warring). I suspect there will be others who do object, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to point out that the 3RR procedures are much more efficient than the procedures for general edit-warring blocks; the former do not have to take into account actions of other editors, justifications need not be considered, and the 3RR noticeboard moves much faster. If you want people to be subject to those procedures even if the fourth revert is after 24 hours, then this policy has to stop saying the opposite. I think it's bad policy to let admins dish out 3RR blocks for some nebulous period after 24 hours, but if that's really the policy you want then we need to say so at this policy page.166.137.138.78 (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Efficient, maybe, but also highly open to gaming, which is pretty much exactly what waiting to make sure your fourth revert falls outside 24 hours is. That's why we need general edit warring blocks. 3RR can't possibly cover all disruptive edit warring behaviour. Personally, I don't bother making the distinction between 3RR and edit warring blocks; I call them all edit warring blocks. That's the real policy; 3RR is just a yardstick. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the assumption of bad faith; for example, if an editor thinks he has a good BLP argument to remove material immediately, but instead waits 24 hours for greater caution in order to get on the other side of the "bright line", I cannot imagine anything in better faith than that. Anyway, there are separate places to report 3RR versus more general edit-warring, right? That's a lot more than a different yardstick. While some argue that waiting to get over the bright line is gaming the system or wikilawyering, they seldom use those labels for editors who file complaints at noticeboards or other venues for administrative action; I always tried to refrain from doing that, because it's much better to work out problems at an article talk page (plus it's usually obnoxious wikilawyering to game the system by constantly requesting administrative action unless it's really necessary). Anyhow, I'll wait 24 hours to see if anyone objects to this edit proposal. I'd prefer if someone else would make the edit, but I'll do it if necessary (and then re-retire).166.137.136.121 (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the rule is not there to regulate time in which you can revert; it exists to stop edit warring. So waiting until after 24 hours is not helping the problem at all. And if the person has a BLP reason, the material should be removed immediately and is exempt from 3RR. Oh, and no, there are not separate places to report; it's a single noticeboard for reporting all forms of edit warring, 3RR or otherwise. As for your idea to wait to see if there are objections, though, that seems good to me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected regarding the separate noticeboard. Anyway, I'll stick with the rest of what I said, and am glad you're okay with removing the "bright line" phrase. As for your recommendation to remove crud from BLPs immediately instead of waiting past 24 hours, maybe that would be worth mentioning in the BLP policy.166.137.136.121 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The BLP exemption, and the preference for removing violations immediately, is already part of policy. It's mentioned in both WP:3RR and WP:BLP. MastCell  18:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent) This is not a proposal to explicitly say anything about BLP. It is a proposal to delete that 3RR is a "bright line rule", and instead say that if you cross the line, you must expect to be blocked, but users who don't cross the line may be blocked for 3RR as well. Do you object to that? 3RR is not a "bright line rule" if users are blockable for 3RR after 24 hours. Editors may have perfectly valid reasons for waiting just past 24 hours to make an edit, thinking that waiting in that manner will reduce the appearance of edit-warring (while demonstrating patience, awareness of the rules, and commitment to follow the rules). It would be deceitful for this policy to give editors a false sense of security that they have crossed a "bright-line" when actually they have not. The present policy up until October 28 had made clear for many months that 3RR is inapplicable if the fourth revert is more than 24 hours after the first; if we instead want 3RR to apply in such instances then it is extremely misleading to call it a bright line rule.166.137.138.25 (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, IP 166 is me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bright line here just means you're probably okay if you only revert twice (but note: probably), but you're almost certainly in trouble if you revert three times, and if you try to time the third so it's strictly not a 3RR violation, you'll find it's non-strictly one anyway. You're focusing too much on the letter of the policy. SlimVirgin 19:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The letter of the policy can be easily and vastly improved to conform with your interpretation of it. A normal human being will understand a bright line rule to mean that he'll be safe if he doesn't cross the line. Why can't we keep this policy clear?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's bright on one side, I think is the point. It's true that the description "bright line" is more relevant to admins taking action on the basis of the rule than to users trying to conform to it, so those words perhaps belong better in the "for administrators" section. Though the whole thinking behind this is wrong - the idea of promoting bright-line rules at all is contrary to Misplaced Pages's most cherished principles. --Kotniski (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Slim's recent edits take care of the problem, as far as I'm concerned. Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote link to Editor War

{{editsemiprotected}} Edit war redirects here from the mainspace. Shouldn't there be a hatnote link on this page to Editor war, about the vi/Emacs rivalry? 86.151.94.184 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. sonia 08:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Edit war ought to redirect to Editor war. We don't generally like redirects from the encyclopedia to project pages, particularly when there's an encyclopedia page they could be redirecting to.--Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree. Edit war is different enough from Editor war that most people searching for edit war are going to have intended to find this page; just omitting the WP: at the start. It is a useful enough shortcut. sonia 09:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)r

OK, I've used a different approach now - I've started a stub article called edit war (which people here might like to expand or otherwise improve). Now everyone can get to where they want to go, and there's no need for cross-namespace redirects or the hatnote on this page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. Thanks for taking the initiative. sonia 10:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Two questions

Scenario:

1. A contentious portion of an article goes through a rocky period, which, after more than one RfC, manages to reach a majority (although not 100%) consensus, based on some compromising, and via the comment on uninvolved editors.
2. The article is changed to reflect that compromise.
3. The article sits for a while (a few days, a few weeks, a few months, whatever), without the contentious portion changed. Like all other articles, it has a few small changes here and there to other parts.
4. A change is made to the article introducing a factual error (a good faith error, not a vandalism error).
5. A member of the majority in the compromise position fixes that error.
6. A member of the minority in the compromise position, on the same day, changes the contentious portion back to their preferred version.
7. Edit-warring ensues, as the same majority member mentioned in line 5 attempts to return the article to its compromise state.

Two questions:

1. Does the first edit made by the majority editor count towards 3RR? It was a reversion, but a reversion of a different, unrelated part. It was not a reversion of vandalism, so not automatically exempt.
2. Are the minority editors' actions questionable, given that the seem to have left the article alone until presented with an opportunity to "win" a 3RR fight?

Just because I feel like I'm being intentionally deceitful if I write all of this in a generic sense, I'm the "member of the majority" mentioned above. The results of the question aren't particularly critical, nor does the article in question need oversight, as I've stopped at either 3 reverts (his count) or 2 reverts (my count), and am awaiting a discussion on the talk page. I just found it, um, interesting that it seemed like a way for someone to WP:GAME the system.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 3RR is easily gameable like this. Of course, the side that provoked the edit war may also get blocked for disruption even without breachign 3RR, but the very fact we have this "rule" encourages people to think in gaming terms, which is the main reason I don't think we should have it. If an admin's ability to identify and counteract disruption is limited to an ability to count up to 4, they probably don't have much business being an admin.--Kotniski (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinion among administrators is split on this issue of the first edit. For example suppose that the minority editor leaves the article alone for a year and a day and then changes a phrase back to their preferred version, then is that a bold edit or a revert? It is not clear cut because we accept the principle that over an (unspecified) length of time that consensus can change and it is reasonable to assertion consensus through bold edits. Some administrators consider it to be a revert others do not. I think it better if it is not decided with a mechanical rule but is left to the discretion of the individual uninvolved administrator. -- PBS (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello.

I have read this page, and would like to propose a slight modification to the rule, but with the caveat that it is just based on what seems to be appropriate in theory, and it would need someone with experience of actual editing conflicts to comment on how it might work in practice.

The change is to insert some text, inserted text underlined here:

A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user, or with only intervening edits which are obviously independent of all of these reverts, counts as one revert.

I am thinking about the case where there is a busy article, and someone reverts some change(s) in bits rather than in a single edit, at what happens to be the same time that someone else is making a series of unrelated and uncontested changes (e.g. to a different section) which end up as intervening edits. It would seem unfair if the person making the reversions fell foul of a rule about "edit warring" just because of this.

Many thanks. No name is good name (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. Though I don't know if it's necessary to actually write it, or if it's something we would expect admins to take into account anyway, per common sense.--Kotniski (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyone else any opinions? No name is good name (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose making this an actual change in the edit-warring policy. An admin who stepped through all the edits in a dispute would possibly make this allowance anyway, but creating a rule about it increases the admin's burden of analysis too much. I recall one case which depended on this distinction, a couple of years ago about a Canadian topic. The person in question had been working up to the very edge of 3RR, so I still think that a block was justified. We do not like it when people treat 3RR as a fixed allowance that they can exhaust as they please; we prefer to use it as a criterion for when a case can be closed as unimportant and not needing further study. If they technically go over 3RR then we try to assess the motivations and predict whether the person will cooperate in the future, or will keep on doing the same thing unless they are sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature

"Revert" is mainly a verb, and although it does exist as a noun, "reversion" is much more normal (so it should be the "three reversions rule"). I guess it doesn't really matter because this is only a "behind-the-scenes" page rather than an article, but even so, it would be nice if it was in more natural English. No name is good name (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Revert" is used in Misplaced Pages-speak as a noun - I think it's acceptable jargon for what is, as you say, a behind-the-scenes page.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(No name...) Grammaraticalistically speaking, perhaps... but I suspect, jargon wise, "revert" is easier to type, spell, remember and understand. Since the idea is to properly convey this subject in a fashion as comprehensible as possible (with an ease of finding it as well), I prefer "revert". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 00:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverts done with the tacit permission of the other editors are not edit-warring.

Reverts done with the tacit permission of the other editors are clearly not edit-warring. Yes, I know this can be assumed. However, editors can get sandbagged into making too many reverts under the assumption that they have permission. Great way to get a ban on a pesky, but naive, editor. And yes, it would be quickly sorted out. However, best this policy gets spelled out, just in case. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree that this can be assumed or should be made a policy. You can't just invoke "oh, those 2 other agree with me, so I can revert as many times as I want." If you're going to cross 3RR, you have to stop and let those others who agree revert. How many other editors do you need to have "tacit" support? And what if there are 2 different groups, who each give "tacit support" to 2 different positions? Edit warring amongst a big group of people is still edit warring, and can/should result in page protection if not blocks all around. In any event, if you have a "naive" editor, you should be informing him/her about Misplaced Pages editing policy/guidelines, not seeking to use a rule to get him/her off the page. Maybe you meant something different than what I'm interpreting; if so, please clarify, but as I read it now, this seems like a really bad idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tacit permission from other editors? How does that work? Anyone can claim to have tacit permission from editors. The exceptions to 3RR are supposed to be bright line situations that either do not violate the spirit of our policies (such as self-reverts) or where a higher principle takes precedence (such as BLP vios). This isn't one of those. Tacit permission isn't good enough to make an exception. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was imprecise. What I meant was everyone on the discussion page agrees to the revert. I bring this because I have seen professional edit-warriers agree to a fourth revert or otherwise trick another editor into doing one and then use this to accuse the other editor of violating the three-edit rule. A good way to drive off pesky nubies who don't know any better. BTW, I've been here in one way or another for close to 6 years-- the only one I ever revert is myself.

Perhaps the article should simply warn that such trickery can happen, and yes it is a gross violation of a bunch of rules. But that none-the-less the three edit rule still stands. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If everyone on the page agrees to the revert, then one of the other editors should be making the revert. Now, this may "trick" the new editor into making a 4th edit, which may get them blocked for a very short period of time. However, one of the talk page people should warn the new editor about 3RR. The goal of 3RR and the edit-warring policy in general isn't to drive away the nubies--it's to drive those nubies to the talk page. Sometimes, of course, that requires tings like "attention-getting blocks." Ideally, of course, if a group of people is editing disruptively just to keep out new editors, an admin will notice that and then start scrutinizing their behavior.

If you're saying, though that the new editor breaking 3RR does so because they were explicitly told to do so on the talk page (i.e., they're already engaging in conversation), then the admin probably shouldn't even block them in the first place. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Tricking inexperienced and/or too-trusting editors into making too many edits is an architype example of WP:GAMING. So over-reacting to it just rewards bad behavior, not what you want to do. As for "attention-getting blocks", We are not training horses here. Particularly in the case of "experts", if I'm a nubie and then get even briefly banned after being throughly-gamed, I'm out-of-here, never to come back. Which is the gamer's goal in the first place. Nucleophilic (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you know someone this actually happened to? Admins usually try to judge the whole picture before issuing any blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a complaint of it on Wikipedia_talk:Gaming_the_system. See: "Example: Double-teaming on 3RR". Apparently, it was in the article itself as an example of an abuse, but was removed. Remember, this is an error likely to be committed by less-sophisticated editors. These may not bother to complain or, just having been throughly beaten up and thrown into an alley, will just blow off wikipedia as a "Bad Idea". As for admins, as others here have remarked, ya never know what they are going to do. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), .....

WP:admin sez " Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist." Anybody question this ? Nucleophilic (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Reinserted in different place. Do not see why admins should not be reminded of their obligations in this context. If reverting, please explain why in more detail. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR question

Should something be added to 3RR to relate it more directly to WP:BRD? I ask this because I've seen a situation where an editor will make a change, which is reverted, and they will revert etc. till they claim the other has violated 3RR. eg.

1. A adds content to article
2. B reverts
3. A reverts to add content
4. B reverts a second time
5. A reverts to add content
6. B reverts a third time
7. A reverts, and claims that B has now reached 3RR while they haven't.

The information is thus forced into the article.

Should the first edit, if reverted, count as a revert as well? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is splitting hairs too finely. The second time each editor reverts, especially without any intervening edits by anybody, each editor should be warned and immediately cease reverting and start discussing. If the reverts are childish my version is better than your version without any offered insight into why the edit is an improvement, I might block an editor if they revert again after being warned, even though they haven't technically reached the 3RR limit. This is in the spirit of minimizing Misplaced Pages disruption, minimizing the hassle each good faith editor encounters, quickly ending destructive practices, and encouraging editors to focus on reasonable arguments, preferably based on the five pillars, and collaborating. —EncMstr (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I only ask because I've seen it happen before. Whoever makes the first change gets the information in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that so bad? Anyone else is free to revert it. What's more important is that the edit warring end quickly. If you are editor A, then appeal to anyone else who has edited the article recently, or to any WikiProjects covering the article. —EncMstr (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually editor B that's in trouble ;) but thanks, I'll keep that in mind! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They're both in trouble for gaming the damn system... warn them both, that way we don't have people asking questions like this one Gurch (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I've seen the opposite: whoever deletes some information first (no matter how well sourced) has the upper hand because deleting a section is merely a "bold edit", even though it seems to fit the definition of revert given on this page. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding or deleting, whoever does it first has the "upper hand". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

How long does an edit stay in place before its removal is not a revert?

Here's the scenario. A template is added to a page. A month goes by, with the page receiving several edits. Someone then removes the template. Are they reverting or just editing? What if this is part of a general disputed removal of the template across several pages? (editor does not like template). In general, how long is it before an addition's removal is no longer considered a revert? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no time limit. Any edit which completely undoes another edit (or series of edits) and has no other effects is a revert. —EncMstr (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it a revert in the sense of BRD? i.e. Is undoing that removal the "revert", or should discussion follow the removal itself? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not how admins construe a revert. Deleting stuff added a while back is merely a "bold edit" at WP:AE these days. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the policy states 24-hours:

It seems HIGHLY likely that there is a time limit of 24 hours. (since the policy spells that out) Obviously, one could engage in a very slow-paced re-revert thing, but to me the whole idea is about whether people support their changes in Misplaced Pages with evidence or simply make the changes.

In the past few days, I have seen people simply change something with hardly any justification, just a passing word or two.

So the question is..... if something is inaccurate, wrong, libelous, etc.... as a BOLD, proactive, Misplaced Pages editor, do you wait and let the bad stay for some nebulous period of time, or just fix it once the 24-hours is up? (along with appropriate explanation/justification and consensus to the degree you can get it, 7 days seems a bit long especially in a contentious or noteworthy article)

...And don't administrators have a duty (with great power comes great responsibility) to make a consistent set of decisions that don't unfairly tread on others? -- Avanu (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

0RR = nonsensical?

The definition of a revert given here is A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. Any disputable but not outright bad addition (not vandalism etc.) would be undeletable under 0RR; oddly enough there's not even an exception for talk page consensus, presumable because of the bright-line intent of this page. So, I propose removing the 0RR example from the policy as ill-defined; it's not explained at all what it could possibly mean, and is nonsensical as a particular case of the general definition. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Further comment. I tried to find some ArbCom case or AN(I) discussion where the 0RR rule has been imposed as sanction by searching what links to the shortcut . There are a couple of examples where specific editors have been placed under 0RR for a specific page by individual administrators e.g. 1, 2, but I wasn't able to find a case where it was adopted by consensus. So, it appears it's largely a solution looking for a problem; presumably one could topic ban the editor from that particular page as well, or ban him from adding or removing a certain type of material; see for example Misplaced Pages:ANI#Ckatz and Destinero. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• 0RR is a severe restriction, and it is seldom used. You will find '0RR' mentioned twice in WP:RESTRICT right now. In my opinion both these uses of 0RR make sense, and experience will tell whether its use should continue in the future. I don't perceive that 0RR is nonsensical. A person who is under 0RR on a certain article is allowed to add brand-new material; that's all. If he wants anything removed, he needs to ask on the talk page for someone else to do it. EdJohnston (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the consensus of administrators at WP:AE seems to be that 0RR allows the removal of material: " if the article was 0RR would any removal of any text be permitted? I think the common sense answer has to be 'yes' PhilKnight 23:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)" So, it doesn't even impose the restriction you think it does. Ergo, nonsensical. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Remeber that certain types of reverts, such as reverting vandalism, are never counted toward x-revert rules. Could it be to that what was referred? --Bsherr (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No, Phil was pretty clear that any type of removal is okay by the AE version of 0RR. This is what happens when a jargony remedy is not clearly spelled out somewhere. By the way, the consensus at AE is that deleting the same material twice in 24hrs does not break 1RR either, because the first deletion is not considered a revert (in whole or in part) of other editor(s) work, but merely a bold edit. Their argument for this interpretation of 1RR could be termed "argumentum ad 0RR"; they say that precisely because 0RR allows removal of any material once (according to them), then removing the same material twice does not break 1RR and so forth. Clearly this policy and AE practice need to be reconciled somehow. Either the definition of a revert in this policy is simply wrong, or the "unwritten" but consensus AE interpretation of 0RR is wrong. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • The whole discussion is about a strange way of counting rather than a principle. WP:BRD suggests to me that where a bold editor makes a change (adding or subtracting) to a previously fairly stable article and another editor objects to that change then reverts, the discussion ought to take place leaving the original form of the article until there is a proper attempt to reach consensus. It should not matter whether there is one or three revert cycles before the discussion takes place. Nor should the counting system give preference to an overly bold editor. 0RR is certainly odd if it allows bold editors to do what they want without response in the article, but 1RR and 3RR should not do so either.--Rumping (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

<In general, this is a standing unsettled ambiguity among admins' interpretations, and 0RR is just the case that makes it plain. In a recent case a block was issued for four edits within 24 hours because the first was considered a revert rather than a bold, in that it continued an attempt to address an open disagreement; other admins' behavior suggests this would not be counted. It is possible that #Alternative proposal may address this by explaining when the first edit should or should not be counted a revert. But at any rate it needs addressing to mitigate pedantry, gaming, and odious comparisons. JJB 16:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. As it may seem odd that I proposed two diverging solutions, let me echo your concern that having a clearly spelled out rule is more important than the details of the rule. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

If the consensus at WP:AE enjoys larger consensus here, then I propose the following addition to the definition of revert (the green box): If the bulk of the edits undone occurred more than 24 hours before their (partial) undoing, then the action of undoing them does not constitute a revert for the purpose of this policy. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(Changed "24hrs" to "24 hours".) This sounds like it would address my concern above on first glance, although I look forward to others picking it apart. The first edit in the set should not be limited to being a totally-new insertion ONLY, and this is especially appropriate under 0RR, but no less necessary under 3RR. For the first edit in any 24-hour period, a partial rephrase of a prior insertion should probably not count as a revert, and a reasoned deletion (not a summary that baldly asserts nothing more than "OR", e.g.) should potentially not count as one, as those are both discussion-starters rather than the attitude of warring. So some such phrasing referring to the coolness of the text reverted may well be useful, if it doesn't become a "zone added to zone". JJB 16:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No. This is something that one has to decide based on the totality of circumstances. The age of the edit undone, the intent of the editor undoing the edit, the relevant history on the article are all factors that need to be taken into account. T. Canens (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding your wording to the policy, if this is the consensus. Currently the policy wording (green box) is much stricter, which seems to be generating more reports than are actionable, and doesn't make sense in the 0RR case. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a cooldown of 24 hours is too short. It's still very close to the 3RR cycle and edit warriors would just use it to get a freebie. Wait a few more hours and the text you were edit warring over yesterday becomes "cold" and you "bold" it away.

I'd make it a week. Otherwise this is a good suggestion. There is a lot of unclarity regarding this issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A week is more like it. Thanks for highlighting this Tijfo. Anthony (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverting crap from high profile articles

As a result of an ANI thread, I just blocked an editor for 3RR, though he wasn't edit warring in the normal sense, but reverting to maintain the quality of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film), an article that is at least as high profile as the average TFA, where "considerable leeway" is given to editors. I would like to propose that this "considerable leeway" be extended to other articles which are very high profile (definition to be determined by enforcing admin). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong support makes perfect logical sense - Amog | 20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case it seems like a fairly straightforward application of common sense. However, I'm somewhat concerned that this could be abused on controversial articles which are both high profile and prone to genuine edit warring. So maybe something along the lines of "on non-controversial high-profile articles considerable leeway is given." Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 20:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose adding anything to policy that isn't well thought out and well-defined; the current TFA exception is a bit dodgy but limited to only one article per day. Extending it creates far too much uncertainty. Support instead, for the time being at least, admins using common sense and focussing on 3RR as a preventive of edit warring. Removal of different low quality yet not vandalism contributions from different IPs or newcomers isn't edit warring even if it's done - horrors! - 4 times in 24 hours. Greater leeway should be extended in practice for high-profile articles, and also to reverting editors who make an effort to engage (welcome/help/explain things to) new users when they revert them. Rd232 20:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Support but needs more thought for instances where something is suddenly attracting attention (case at hand is the new Harry Potter film) from new IP editors who are adding crap by accident (eg adding to the already 100k plot, inserting their own reviews), rather than vandalising the article. We don't want to semi it because maybe 50% of the edits are good, but it can leave anyone watching the article in an awkward position. Will need more clarity on the exception though, and maybe a process where the exception has to be requested at AN or ANI and gain support.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the block that provoked this proposal was a silly one, and that this is a silly response to that silly block. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe the way to approach this is to put a clause into the 3RR rule that exceptions must be explicitly sought on ANI. It introduces more leniency into the rule without relaxing it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Far too loose elevates admins position above the traditional janitors view. Making decisions as to if it's high-profile and if the edits were protecting (i.e. making content decisions), no scope for drama in that then. Isn't the normal way to look at this, that if you are the sole person protecting the wiki from the incoming, then perhaps the issue isn't as serious as you think it is? Don't we tell people Being "right" is not an exception to the three-revert rule, and claiming that your version is the "better" version is not a reason that will get you unblocked.. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Like many of the "rules" here that's only applied to non-admins. I was blocked twice for 3RR in 24 hours only a few weeks ago, even though the article was at TFA. What's sauce for the goose clearly isn't sauce for the gander. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking out loud: what about saying "for the purposes of 3RR, reverting substantially new and unsourced content from new contributors does not contribute to the daily revert count, if the reverting editor gives due respect to the edit and communicates the issues to the contributor in a helpful and welcoming manner." Even if we don't stick this in the policy as is, this covers a lot of the issues. Rd232 21:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. If there's a silly edit war that's not over outright vandalism, and it involves several users, the right solution seems to be page protection and talk page discussion rahter than "holier than yours" reverts. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the issue is more lots of people making good faith put low quality additions, not edit warring. Rd232 21:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's a wiki; one editor's crap may be another's best effort. Some of the most pernicious wikiwars have been over MOS-level stuff. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The not so probable scenario you described could also be handled by WP:FLAGGEDREVS. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't Semi-Protection be a better way to deal with that, so the issues can be discussed with the other editors? If we grant a license to edit war on one side, do the other side also become immune? Or are these good faith but low quality edits about to earn them a block? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Semi-protection locks editors out; it's not an improvement on granting a bit more leeway on 3RR, especially if the leeway is tied to welcoming editors as appropriate. Flagged Revisions is more like a solution, but it's in a bit of a limbo at the moment. Rd232 21:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • So the problem is so bad with "lots of people" requiring immediate reversion and going past 3RR, but semi-protection isn't reasonable. Sounds nonsense to me, it seems really unlikely that the low quality edits you state are that bad so they can't stay around for a short while whilst discussion with these good-faith editors ensues (in which case no 3RR). If the flow is so high that reversion without discussion is the solution, I can't imagine that temporarily locking out new and unregistered users (which I am one of) would be a significant problem. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Isn't this sort of situation, in fact, the whole reason for the pending changes mechanism. Anyone can edit, but an experienced editor has to approve the changes on such articles? Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Five wikibucks question for anyone who hasn't watched the movie: is this revert improving the article (by removing crap) or not? That sums up the essence of this proposal. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As someone who's never seen the movie and quite likely never will, I certainly wouldn't have reverted that as "crap". Seems to be verging dangerously on personal interpretation of the plot. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• I most strongly disagree with this proposal. It would essentially enable enforcing administrators to decide content disputes, because they would have to determine which of several contested versions of an article is of higher quality. This necessarily requires a judgment about the merits of the contested content. Consequently, this proposal runs counter to what is practically a constitutional principle of Misplaced Pages, i.e., that administrators do not adjudicate content disagreements. Apart from that, of course, this sort of catch-all exception could be used to contest almost all applications of 3RR, and would therefore enable many more edit wars and substantially weaken what may be our most important safeguard against disagreements getting out of hand.  Sandstein  22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• oppose - if it's a high profile article, that means lots of people watching it and lots of people can remove the crap without anyone violating 3RR. One man's crap is another man's wise insight around here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Admins already have the ability to be clement as they see fit (I know I surely won't block a user for edit warring if I'm convinced the edits they're making are unquestionably needed to maintain Misplaced Pages). Writing clemency into the policy seems like a really bad idea to me. The wording needs to be firm. Clemency should remain at admin discretion (and always will unless and until one day admins are required to block for certain offences) and not as an enshrined part of policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• The fact that an admin felt moved to block someone who "wasn't edit-warring..." but was maintaining the quality of the article is far more worrying than the fact that not all bases are covered in the wording of this rule. If this is happening, then it needs to be spelt out in big letters that you only need to block someone under 3RR if they actually are engaged in harmful edit-warring behaviour. Doesn't matter how high-profile the article is - low-profile articles matter less but are less likely to have other people actively patrolling them. No-one who's clearly protecting the quality of the encyclopedia should ever have to fear being sanctioned for it (the key word being "clearly").--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It was complicated by the fact that the user was an admin, and the need to avoid the impression of special treatment. And a number of the reverts weren't particularly "clearly". Rd232 09:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I don't necessarily have any criticism to make in the specific case, but the general principle should be that people are not blocked unthinkingly for technical breaches of a rule, but only if their behaviour really is of the disruptive type that the rule was designed to catch.--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As an non-admin editor who has attempted to uphold the standards of Misplaced Pages during unfolding events on a certain TV reality series I am for this proposal. I've been on the white hot line of 3RR during the broadcast period of the show several times and have informed other editors (both interested in the topic and uninvolved in the topic) regarding changes on the page to help uphold the standards. It's one thing to edit war about blatently obvious things (like one of the contestants being shoved and cooked in an oven) to 3RR cliffs about the style of the contestant progress section. I know that this may not be popular, but it would have solved many problems when the patrolling corps of editors are trying to keep the page correct and verifyable. Hasteur (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I found this topic late. As a non-admin editor of a page covering a controversial but important political topic "protected" by the 1RR, I want to add my voice to Hasteur's and support this proposal. Briefly, this rule works when several neutral editors face few biased editors, not the other way around. Remember that the "many" biased editors could be one man with several sockpuppets. Under these circumstances, the 1RR favours the biased editors. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Mention WP:IAR, with a caveat that rule-ignorers should be prepared to explain themselves and a reminder that edit warring is not "improving the encyclopedia". --NYKevin @853, i.e. 19:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Logical "Reverted edits by User:Fanboy34525 to last version by User:blablurblee per WP:IAR". If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. So long as you have a legitimate reason why making that 4th (or 7th in the case that prompted this discussion) revert is an improvement, you should have nothing to fear. N419BH 20:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. This is one of the more sensible employments of IAR I've seen. --Bsherr (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support An excellent use of WP:IAR. The goal of 3RR is not meant to limit vandal fighting or the improvement of the encyclopaedia. We all can recognise the difference between an edit war and trying to maintain article quality against a flood of well meaning, but poorly wiki-educated drive-by ip editors. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that WP:3RR already has an exception for reverting obvious vanadlism? As for improvement of the encyclopedia, of course it's not meant to stop that, however there is a reasonable feeling and argument that edit wars are harmful to the encyclopedia. They do nothing to contribute towards a collegial editing environment, and in terms of an outsider looking in toing and throughing between editors isn't exactly brilliant. There is no need for IAR or additional exceptions, if it's vandalism revert and if need be block the vandal. If it's not that clear cut then temporary protection and discussion generally works. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it seems entirely sensible (though we must encourage the change in mentality to actually happen, not just write it here, so wider publicity is probably required for this proposal).--Kotniski (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As a non-admin editor of a controversial political subject under the 1RR rule, I am worried about ignoring rules. In political battlefields where every source or word will be attacked, the only weapon of a reasonable editor is the strict application of WP policies. The last thing we want is for extremists to evoke WP:IAR as they hack the text away, laughing at the reasonable editors rendered powerless by the 1RR. If I had to propose an alternate rule, it would be the opposite of this proposal, i.e. to invalidate WP:IAR for controversial pages, making all other WP policies compulsory for all. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

3-RR

In "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."

Surprisingly there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about what editing means. I quote in full the introduction to the Misplaced Pages article (bold is mine).

Editing is the process of selecting and preparing language, images, sound, video, or film through processes of correction, condensation, organization, and other modifications in various media. A person who edits is called an editor. In a sense, the editing process originates with the idea for the work itself and continues in the relationship between the author and the editor. Editing is, therefore, also a practice that includes creative skills, human relations, and a precise set of methods.

Reverting on the other hand is not a practice that includes creative skills, human relations, and a precise set of methods, but simply a return to status quo, and therefore can not be identified as editing as such. Moreover, edit warring occurs when human relations are entirely removed from the equation of 'editing', and are replaced with 'administrative actions' which seem to be mostly about a 'power trip' and not employment of skills in interactive relationships. Hence, the prolific arbitation issues Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But in the context of Misplaced Pages (or wikis generally), "an edit" is understood to mean any change made to a page - I suppose it's covered by "other modifications" in the definition you quote above. Since this is the established terminology I don't see that we would solve any problems by trying to change it.--Kotniski (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Its absolute bonkers. If revert=edit, or anything, then there can be almost 0 editing if anyone at any time chooses to revert. And editing doesn't work in word-at-a-time. This means that 'controversial' subjects will eventually fall to whoever lasts out longer, and not to quality editing. So, while I think of myself capable of substantially improving articles that badly need it, I will do nothing and write articles that will get perhaps 10 visits a year because at least there I am unhindered from doing real writing. Way to go Misplaced Pages! Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

All 3-RR does is put a solid limit on the number of reverts someone can make per day. Note that it is not a license. So, for example, if you add something that you believe is valuable to an article, this does not mean that another editor can arbitrarily remove the info up to 3 times per day. Instead, what is supposed to happen, ideally, is that if you add some info, then someone else thinks it doesn't belong and reverts it, you're supposed to go onto the articles talk page and discuss the info that you think should be added. This cycle is called Bold, Revert, Discuss, and is a standard (although not the only) way of editing articles. Note, though, that just because you do add something in good faith does not mean it will stay in--there are numerous policies and guidelines that govern editing at Misplaced Pages that may mean that the person reverting is correct in doing so. But what that other editor is not allowed to do is just revert willy-nilly--there needs to be reasons for adding things, and there needs to be reasons for removing. Any time you find yourself regularly being reverted, go to the talk page and start discussion. If that discussion doesn't get anywhere, go to some stage of dispute resolution (Third Opinion, Request for Comment, etc.). Is there a particular article where you've been experiencing problems? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What you describe is pure fantasy.

However, I am not here to waste time on arbitration procedures. I want to write, and I think I do it in good faith as you say. This is what Misplaced Pages is for, not to teach people how to become Misplaced Pages lawyers. My time is limited, and Misplaced Pages contributions should be enjoyable to encourage that participation, not a trial, literally.

I had done what you suggested, and it led to effective halt to any editing although the article is garbage, and I'm reflecting only the stylistic, structural and content presentation aspects of it and not even the veracity of claims or accuracy of the material or adequacy of the sources on which it is based. And, the article accuses an entire country of a crime against humanity, so not a trivial matter.

It seems to me the WP:BRD|Bold, Revert, Discuss should read WP:BDR|Bold, Discuss, Revert, or maybe WP:DBR|Discuss, Bold, Revert, with the hope that the last wouldn't actually be used given the discussion.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, BRD is prety well ingrained for many editors (although I admit they fail to understand that BRD itself says it can't be used in all cases). In any event, though, I don't really understand what you're asking for. It sounds like you're implying that people should be able to add whatever they want, and that, by definition, that which is added is valuable and people need to obtain a strong consensus to take it out. While you may be acting in good faith, many many editors do not. It would, for example, allow ethnic/nationalist POV pushers add any information to articles they wanted ("My ethnic group invented everything good in the world, and groups that fight us are disgusting sub-humans,"), and the onus would suddenly be on everyone else to take the info out. Plus, it wouldn't even solve what you want it to solve, because if you add something that you think goes in the article, under your system, someone else could add in the exact opposite info, and you'd still have no easy way to make the article read the way you think it should. I don't understand how we could identify you, specifically, as deserving to have your edits stay in articles, while other editors have to go through some sort of process to modify the articles.

Also, you say that you don't have time for arbitration...well, the fact is that some issues on Misplaced Pages are going to result extremely long, painful processes. I mean, if editing in say, Israeli-Palestinian issues was smooth and uncontroversial, I would actually think something is wrong with the process, not right. If you're not interested in being involved in those discussions, then, yes, you're right, that part of Misplaced Pages is not right for you. And, really, there's nothing wrong with that. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. It shouldn't matter what the subject of the article is. The editing standards should be robust enough to prevent cause the effect you describe as being 'normal' (I mean, if editing in say, Israeli-Palestinian issues was smooth and uncontroversial, I would actually think something is wrong with the process, not right.) I INITIATED the discussions, but few chose to participate and I was reverted by an editor that made no effort at discussion. Why should I have to go through the dispute resolution (Third Opinion, Request for Comment every time a new editor appears and chooses to revert because he/she 'feels' my editing is wrong? And, I have to wait 24 hours before I can revert, and then there is an immediate claim of edit-warring (Orwell would have loved Misplaced Pages) And, for this reason the whole 3RR/1RR rule is a faulty conception, serving to defend people that DO NOT contribute content but just use the application software! Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Open proxies reverts not subject to 3rr?

I note that there does not currently exist a 3rr exception list for reverting edits made from open proxies. Since editing from open proxies is forbidden, should this also not be one of the exceptions to 3rr? Would anyone object if I added open proxies to the 3rr exceptions? Sailsbystars (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing on an open proxy is normally forbidden, because the editor is normally a block-evading, vandalising sock. I believe there are occasional circumstances where an editor can obtain permission to use an open proxy, also it requires some technical knowledge to spot 'em. See what others think. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Unclear that is wise to add open proxy edits to the list of 3RR exceptions. The policy on proxies allows them to be employed by legitimate users, with the proviso that the IP can be blocked at any time:

Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked.

So the mere fact that an edit was made through a proxy should not imply that it is revertible by anyone without penalty. In specific cases, there may be other abuse going on that would justify the reverts. For example, this could be a banned user evading a block, and there is already a 3RR exception that allows reverting such a user. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kinda why I wanted to get input before I made the change, and also clarify the policy in general. I've occasionally found open proxies making helpful edits when going through the open proxy detection logs and it wasn't clear to me if the edits could be summarily reverted or not. It appears that the answer is they can often be reverted for reasons other than being open proxies, but not solely because they are open proxies. So leaving as-is is probably the best option. Thanks for the comments! Sailsbystars (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

History of the three revert rule?

Would a kind soul link me to where the three revert rule was first proposed and adopted please? Purely for my own interest, I'm not setting out to edit war or anything ;) Egg Centric (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The archives of this talk page are instructive. They go back to 2004. Also, check out Revert wars considered harmful (the three revert guideline), which is the first mention I could find of 3RR as a rule. It dates from 15 August 2004. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we add exemption for sandbox page?

I think we should add exemption of 3RR in sandbox page.Why??? because that page is oftenly used for experiment,and has very high risk about edit warring...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpson H (talk • contribs) 10:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think most admins will be savvy enough not to block for mere tests that happen to revert each other. And as it is possible (but please don't) for someone to actually get into a disruptive edit war in the sandbox, I don't think an exemption is a good idea. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

An exemption might mean that an individual or two could "hog" the page by reverting anything anyone else might place upon it - although they might eventually be warned/sanctioned for disruption, they could discourage a number of other users before action is taken. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

another editor/other editors Plural or singular?

Do you mind can I ask a question please. I am somewhat confused by the singular and plural in the rule:

• "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor(singular)."
• "Undoing another editor's (singular) work — whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."
• "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors,(plural)"

"Other editors" sounds plural to me, including any edits which affect existing text: e.g. if someone comes to the same article at 9:00AM amends a ref from editor X from 2005, at 1:00pm returns and changes wording in a line from editor Y from 2008, and at 8:00pm deletes and substitutes a more relevant reference from editor Z from 2004 that he/she has broken the 3RR? Sorry the example might sound somewhat contrived, it's theoretical. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

All the reverts you have mentioned would normally count toward the three-revert limit. Whether 'editor' or 'editors' is used in the policy is not significant for the meaning. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Can a single revert make an editor part of an edit war and sanctionable for edit warring?

If there is an edit war ongoing, and an editor who has not previously (or recently) edited the article makes a (single) revert to it, can he be punished for edit warring? PS. This question is related to an ongoing AE report, see . There an administrator states that "an editor is also engaged in (and therefore sanctionable for) edit-warring if they contribute a single revert to an edit war that is otherwise carried on mainly by others.". If this is indeed a case, I would very strongly recommend adding this wording to EW as well as WP:BRD. For the record, I disagree with such interpretation of EW/BRD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's not just that. The four edits (on four different articles) at issue where all made before the edit war started. In one case, the edit was made six months before other people started edit warring on the article. It's simply ridiculous. . On the other three they were a simple straightforward BRD reverts, and only afterward did other people start edit warring on it - I didn't and I ceased making any further edits to the article. Why am I being blamed for what other people did?Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Guilt by association/collateral damage do come to mind... more seriously, I always thought that an editor was "edit warring" if they made more than one edit in a reasonably short period of time (1-2 days for regular edit warring, <1-2 weeks for "slow edit warring"). "1R" as in B"R"D or 1"R"R was, I believed, "the good thing". Seeing an editor called an edit warrior for a single edit to an article (not to mention an editor who was engaged in much constructive talk discussion) is something quite new, to me at least. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)