Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule

• /Archive01 - Aug 2004 to Sep 2005
• /Archive02 - Next to start

Related talk pages:

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

Reverting a suspected banned user when there's no proof

I moved this from WP:AN/3RR; I've put it in italics.

User:143.238.245.213

Okay, this is not (yet) a 3RR violation, but I'm reporting it here because it's connected with the 3RR rule. User:143.238.245.213 is adding stuff to the Jim Duffy Talk Page, and from the context, it's almost certainly Skyring, posting anonymously. I reverted him, and he reverted me. We've both reverted three times now, and I'm not going to revert again, as I'm not sure what the rules are for reversions of suspected sockpuppets and/or suspected banned users posting anonymously. He's also reverting at Wikipedia:Requested moves, with the same claim – that Jim Duffy has not published any books, and shouldn't be listed as an author. It all ties in with Skyring's harrassment of Jtdirl, who, according to Skyring, is Jim Duffy in real life. I personally have no interest in whether the article lists him as a journalist or as an author, but I don't like to give in to a stalker. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 01:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: he has now reverted three times at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and will probably make a fourth revert in the next few minutes! I'm going to bed now. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 01:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's skyring, he's already banned the 3RR has nothing to do with it. --fvw* 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know if there is any policy on allowing an exception when we suspect (but can't prove) that it's a banned user editing anonymously, or a sockpuppet for a banned user. If we take the exception for reverting simple vandalism, it's normally easy for an admin to decide whether or not it really was vandalism that the user reverted four times. (Unfortunately, some users put "revert vandalism" in the edit summary when it's really just a reversion of POV, or even just an edit that the user disagrees with.) But in the case of the reversions I made last night, I had no proof that it was Skyring. It's just that it seemed fairly obvious that it was, as he went straight for Jim Duffy again, and it would be too much of a coincidence that a genuine anon would have had the same interests and arguments. His talk page shows that others agreed with my guess.

Is there any guarantee that I wouldn't have been blocked if I had continued? And if so, should this page have some addition to show that reverting banned users is also okay? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

there is no guarantee You just have to hope that people agree with you.Geni 12:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Posting a comment on the administrator's notice board explaining your actions will go a long way to avoiding a block in such situations. Kelly Martin 16:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks as if I was wise to stop, then! And actually, I agree that since suspected sockpuppetry is not as clear cut as definite vandalism, there shouldn't be a guarantee of being allowed to continue with impunity. However, if I were an admin, I don't think I could find it in me to block someone who was reverting nasty personal attacks. And they're not listed as exceptions either. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Where are the "nasty personal attacks", Ann? The anon merely says that Jim Duffy (author) has published no books. Perhaps the article could include a list of published books? Can someone look into this?

Hello again, Skyring. Just to clarify – my reference to "nasty personal attacks" was not directly connected to your harrassment of Jtdirl. I was making a general comment. The key sentence is, And they're not listed as exceptions either. By the way, have you forgotten, you've been banned for a year? And I don't think the year is up yet. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Good morning, Ann! Though I suppose it's getting onto midnight where you are. Seriously, I can't see your point with the "exceptions" comment, and anyway, you accuse me of harassing jtdirl when he, you and others are trying to do exactly the same thing to me. So don't go claiming any moral high ground, sister! As for a year long ban, well, I should have thought it obvious by now that I don't give a fig for it. A month I might have swallowed. It's far too much fun to see people running around reverting good edits and trying to claim that black is white for me to stay away for a whole year. And the key point is that it's fun. Whatever happened to the noted Irish sense of fun and good humour?

3RR and CSD G4

Not quite hypothetically speaking, of course, but does repeated recreation of deleted content count as a revert for the 3RR? —Cryptic (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

query re what constitutes a revert

I've been accused of a 3rr violation, on the basis that the first of the four reverts was the commenting out of a new addition. Does this qualify as reverting? Palmiro | Talk 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR Modification, No Tagteaming

I'd like to modify 3RR to remove tagteaming:

Rather than 3 reverts per article per 24 hours, it's 3 reverts per article per editor. So if Ann is having a nice editwar with Bob and Charlotte, Ann could revert Bob 3 times, and could revert Charlotte 3 times. This helps identify and block entire tag-teams, which at this point in time seems to be becoming more important. (re: some cliquebusting proposals which have been floating around... are any of those on-wiki yet?)

Kim Bruning 22:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, but if Bob asks Charlotte to help him revert Ann's edits, that means there's a stronger consensus for Bob's version. Likewise, if Ann asks David and Ewan to help with the reverting, that means her version has consensus. If Bob and Charlotte ask Frank and Gregor to join in, then they have the consensus in their favor. And so forth. Usually Ann or Bob will ask their uninvolved friend Ada the Admin to protect the page (they won't be so crass as to specify which version should be protected, of course, but they don't need to) before it gets this far.

I won't deny that cliques and tagteaming are a problem, but the problem is with the editors, not the rule. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be a rather major change in policy, and one that I would not agree to - it would allow POV warriors to hold the entire rest of Wikipedia at bay, merrily reverting each editor who disagrees with them 3 times. For example, not so long ago, the Disruptive Apartheid editor reverted 10 different editors at the Apartheid article, and would have reverted 100 more, until everyone had reached "consensus" and "agreement" (i.e. his version). He still goes on to this day about the "tag-teams". What POV-warriors and trolls tend to call "tag-teams" other Wikipedians often call "consensus". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What happens now though is that a very small clique can form a tagteam to lock out new editors to a particular article (ie. take ownership) Kim Bruning 22:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many dispute resolution mechanisms to draw additional editors into an article. I think your cure is worse than the problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

New editors are not always likely to be aware of such mechanisms. That, and I think 3RR has several flaws that might be fixed by a proposal like this. It's no disastar if there's a couple more reverts on a particular article, imvho. But we do catch who's busy gaming the system that way. Kim Bruning 22:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's just get back to basics, okay? This 3RR rule isn't supposed to solve all the worlds problems.

It was implemented on the premise that it was a simple rule, an clerical procedure that could be handled by any administrator to take some burden off the arbitration committee. This procedure exists only because there isn't supposed to be much of anything in the way of judgment involved. Let's keep it that way.

So get back to simply enforcing that rule, and let everything else be taken care of by other appropriate procedures. Enforce it fairly, across the board. Don't make exceptions because X is a "good editor". Don't make exceptions because there is a lull in the edit war. Just do the one day block that is supposed to be appropriate under this rule. Gene Nygaard 00:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Kim, wouldn't this proposal give more power to the individual revert warrior? As additional users revert his edits, the warrior gains more reverts. If five editors are reverting another user's edits, do we really want that editor to be able to revert a total of 15 times? Am I misunderstanding the details of your proposal? Carbonite | Talk 22:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You can still block or protect if an edit war becomes that big and that clear. At the same time, this allows us to find all the participants, so a lot of stuff that was once hidden now becomes visible. It would be interesting and useful, even if perhaps only for a short while. Kim Bruning 22:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, it still seems to me like it would give revert warriors more power. I think we'd also create a new problem of having to decide whether a group of editors was a clique or not. I've seen many instances of an editor trying a tiny minority view (often original research) into an article and being opposed by several editors who had the page on their watchlist. With this proposal, there would be accusations of tag-teaming and claims that the 3RR didn't apply because multiple editors were reverting him. Basically, in trying to solve one problem, I believe we'd be creating an even worse one. Carbonite | Talk 23:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it certainly shifts the problem, I do agree! The thing is I'm hearing rumors about certain activity, the current 3RR is masking that activity, and I am darn curious to find out what's actually been going on under our radars all this time. Kim Bruning 23:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

So start monitoring the the 3RR reporting page.Geni 23:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. How would this help? Kim Bruning 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You might be in a better position to acertain the truth of these romours. Geni 00:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, in fact there have been some RFCs with evidence that basically got truncated by the 3RR... that was somewhat annoying. Kim Bruning 01:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Which RfCs would have had more evidence if your proposal has been enacted? I'm having a hard time seeing the clique problem without an example of how your proposal would have helped. Carbonite | Talk 14:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What happens now though is that a very small clique can form a tagteam to lock out new editors to a particular article (ie. take ownership)—Yes indeed, but. . . What if all the teams in the above example (Bob and Charlotte, David and Ewan, Frank and Gregor), who agree on little else, all agree that Ann's edits should be reverted? Is this a clique in action, or is it one crank trying to control the article in the face of consensus (the real thing, not the Wikipedia Bizarro Consensus) against her? I would submit that many instances of Case 1 (multi-sided disagreement, with one slightly outnumbering the other) are cast as instances of Case 2 (editors of multiple viewpoints united in opposing a crank). —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That's actually one of the questions that I'm hoping to answer by trying this. Kim Bruning 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think one should change policy in a major and dangerous way simply to satisfy curiousity about "rumors" one is hearing. If there are specific charges, investigate them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you can always block and/or protect for editwarring, 3RR just limits the scope of edit wars. What I'd like to do is loosen 3RR slightly, and hopefully some stuff will crawl up out from under the woodwork. If there's nothing actually there, the change will have little to no effect anyway I think. Kim Bruning 01:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand, especially with regard to the problems faced by newbies. As it is now, a newbie who reverts a few times will be told about the 3RR. A newbie who violates it might receive only a warning; if there's a short block, it's at least based on violation of an explicit rule. Suppose four other editors disagree with the newbie's edit. They keep reverting, but the newbie, having diligently read the 3RR as you'd revise it, reverts them all (12 times total), and then gets blocked for edit warring despite having been careful to conform to the rule. How would this change benefit the newbie?

I also don't understand what might "crawl up out from under the woodwork". There really are articles where editor Ann wants to insert something and editors Bill, Connie, Dennis, and Eve disagree. If Ann is sufficiently obstinate, what will crawl up is that she'll keep reverting. What do we learn from that? The change would have a major effect in such cases. Edit wars of this type (one committed iconoclast against the world) do occur now, and will occur much more often if the iconoclast no longer finds his or her efforts thwarted by the 3RR. JamesMLane 10:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your assumption is that 3RR only gets applied in situations it was designed for. Kim Bruning 13:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of this proposal, or anything else that would increase the amount of edit warring that is permitted. Really three reverts is a ridiculously high number for one person to make on any one article in a twenty-four hour period. The last thing I want is for A to be able to do three reverts against B, three reverts against C, and so on. That way lies lunacy. If there is a multi-way edit war then all parties need to stop, and 3RR with all its faults does have that effect. The 3RR has unfortunately had the effect of appearing to sanction edit warring to the extent that many editors believe and openly profess edit warring to be a permissible way of forcing through their own point of view by wearing down opposition. Obviously these people can still be stopped for disruptive behavior, but it won't do to have a change in 3RR that gives the disruptive editors even more cause to believe that their behavior is ever acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to chime in here as someone who implements online rules and policies for a living, I agree that the proposed modification would overly empower cranks and highly motivated single-issue types. It seems clear to me that the original intention (or, at least, one of the original intentions) behind 3RR was to provide a defense against cranks, who are usually highly motivated by their own irrationality. Anything which reduces that defense is bad, IMHO. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Our biggest problem atm is not so much cranks as it is cliques, the few cranks we can handle (else send them my way :-P ). I'd like to do something about cliques. Hmmm, maybe you have some other idea about what might be a better plan? Kim Bruning 13:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Our biggest problem at the moment is not so much cranks as it is cliques? I see no evidence of this. Please stop making vague accusations; if you have specific charges, out with them. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes please! Do you have specific proposals as to how I could go about collecting sufficient evidence to come up with those charges? Kim Bruning 17:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, investigate complaints? That's the way it's usually done, as opposed to making huge changes to policy in the hopes that it will somehow flush evidence out of the woodwork. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so I've gotten a handful of complaints that "cliques are running the system", and they've pointed me at certain people, but I don't have enough evidence to point a finger. On investigating further, I run across lots of revert wars, but I can't say with certainty what the exact situation is, because the 3RR truncates the fight. At that point I drop by here and propose (temporarily?) relaxing policy and observing the results :-) Kim Bruning 18:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Get RFC working. I can see plenty of ways an editor warrior can exploite your rule change. The 3RR exists for one reseason. To prevent high speed brute force edit wars. If the 3RR is stoping you from getting a version you can accept it is time to rethink your tactics or your position.Geni 13:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

How did you come to the conclusion that cliques are a bigger problem than cranks? Also, even assuming that cliques are that big of a problem, how is this specific proposal going to solve the problem? As I pointed out above (and you agreed), we'd being creating the new problem of having to decided whether a group of editors was a clique or just happened to represent consensus.

I've always been dealing with cranks of all sorts, hey, I started WP:TINMC! (most folks you get there aren't cranks, for sure, but once in a while...). Currently I'd say we have the cranks bit down pat, no worries! Now for the cliques part. I'll answer that below to carbonite also. Kim Bruning 13:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't we be tossing the policy of "assume good faith" out the window? It seems like the default assumption of this proposal is that when multiple editors revert a single editor, the group is a tag-teaming clique. It's common practice for editors to seek the opinion of others if they notice someone reverting an article. In fact, some editors even follow a 1RR and will never get engaged in a revert war. Instead, they bring in other editors as soon as possible. This proposal would discourage such good behavior because revert warriors see the 3RR as an entitlement. Carbonite | Talk 13:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If the 3RR is an entitlement at all, it's probably broken. But assuming that it isn't, we don't have to assume some group is a clique or not, but what we *WOULD* see is situations where groups exist, and we can work from there. 3RR is like an electric fence. All I'm asking is to move the fence back a bit so that we get to see what actually gets zapped by it. Kim Bruning 13:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Defining hard limits in a ruleset, while occasionally necessary, will always invite rules lawyers. If your online policy says "20 or more substantially identical posts to Usenet per day will be considered spamming," then you may rest assured there will be at least one person (and probably more) who will post 19 substantially identical posts and then claim they weren't spamming.

Consider that your proposal would also exponentially empower the cliques you seek to thwart. A clique of four vs. a clique of three would be able to generate 72 edits to a page per day before anybody ran afoul of the relaxed rule. Adding a single person to either clique would either generate an extra 18 edits allowed per day (clique of five vs. clique of three) or an extra 24 edits allowed per day (clique of four vs. clique of four). And you can bet your sweet bippy that anybody gaming the system to that extent would holler like a madman that they had not broken any official Wikipedia policy if you tried to ban them for edit warring prior to their reaching that limit.

I am presuming (perhaps erroneously) that you feel such edit-warring between cliques will become significantly more obvious with a more relaxed ruleset. I am further presuming (also perhaps erroneously) that you envision admins using these more obvious edit wars to lock down the war prior to it reaching the N edits per day per page limit (which, as I point out above, can be quite high with only a small number of participants). Assuming that my presumptions are true, then the enforcement mechanism of the rule boils down admins using a judgement call to enforce the spirit of the rule prior to the letter of the rule being violated.

And if you're going to rely on a judgement call made by individual admins, then why have a rule in the first place? Just say "Admins can, in their judgement, block people who are obviously engaged in edit wars" and be done with it.

Of course, if I have presumed incorrectly with any of the above, you are free to disregard it. ;) → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You got pretty darn far! Actually, I'd like to relax the rule at least for a little while and just observe what happens. Admins just apply the rule as normal. The trick would lie in observing what happens when we do that.

It's like casting a net. When you're done you haul up little fish and big fish. We can toss back the little fish, and end up with the big fish we were looking for.

After a while we can stop fishing again, especially if we start catching more little fish than big ones.

I wonder if they'll still bite  :-) Kim Bruning 14:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My belief is that Wikipedia has achieved critical mass in that regard. It is sufficiently large that there will always be someone willing to bite. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Geni's assertion to get RFC working is the best idea in this thread--the trick is how? The idea that you can solve problems with version-pushers (whether from an individual or a clique) with increased attention is a good one. But the RFC cavalry does not come to the rescue when there's a problem. Why? I suspect it's because people feel with certain articles they're in for a fight, so offering their opinion does little good (how many times has someone shaken their head... "I'm not getting involved in that one"). I happen to think that offering a stickier form of consensus would help, since people would feel that once we worked out what we want to say on the talk page, that version would have a stability that's harder to dislodge. Is this it? I don't think it is, and enforcement is ugly and problematic--the spectre of people reaching months back into an edit history and finding a revert you forgot, just to trip you up and get you blocked on a legalistic point... no thanks. Demi ^T/_C 15:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ha! Well, my comment doesn't really make sense unless you know that I misunderstood the proposal. I thought the revision was an editor could not revert an article more than three times, ever. The proposed change is just awful. Demi ^T/_C 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

THANKS! :-P *ahem* Ah well, if even Demi says it's a bad idea, then it's back to the drawing board for me. Any suggestions? Kim Bruning 17:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's A vs. B, C, and D, I think the interpretation "A is a crank" is more helpful than "B, C and D are a clique" at least until others agree with A. —Ashley Y 17:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Ashley Y, though my view is colored by my having wasted huge amounts of time in the last month dealing with a single -- uh, let me say "iconoclastic editor" instead of "crank". If other editors look at the article and the talk page and agree with me, and these are editors with whom I've had little or no previous interaction, are we collectively a "clique" just because we agree on something? The best suggestion I can offer at this point is that you try to give us a clearer picture of the problem you want to address. JamesMLane 17:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, that'd show up quite a lot. Filtering for the actual cliques would definately be a chore I guess. Since we're going back to the drawing board, What else could we do? Kim Bruning 18:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

We might be better served by analyzing a few specifics so we can get a handle on whether the problem is general or not. Also, I (and Geni) did point out the making RFC work better might address some clique issues. Demi ^T/_C 19:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that discussing specific incidents would be more productive than coming up with hypothetical situations. Without understanding the problem, we've little chance of developing an effective solution. Carbonite | Talk 19:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick definitions: a clique is any group of editors who agree with each other and disagree with me. A crank is any editor apart from myself whom nobody agrees with. —Ashley Y 21:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Next Day" Loophole

This may have been discussed elsewhere, but 3RR is seriously flawed since many users just wait and spread out their fourth edit until the Next Day. Even this this is basically what 3RR is designed to prevent, it's not covered under 3RR. The most recent example of this that i've seen is at British Sea Power by Pigsonthewing. He wants a crufty interview in there that has probably been removed over a dozen times, but he keeps on putting it back through this loophole. Karmafist 15:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you seem unable to refrain from making personal attacks; and from twisting the truth. Andy Mabbett 16:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The rule is violated by four reverts in any 24-hour period, not just a calendar day. Looking at the history of British Sea Power, I see recent edits by Pigsonthewing at these times (UTC):

19:02, 16 November 2005

22:08, 16 November 2005

11:02, 17 November 2005

22:00, 17 November 2005

Even if all these edits were reverts (I haven't looked at them), there's no 3RR violation because no 24-hour period contains more than three reverts. On the other hand, if the fourth edit in the list had been made before 19:02 on 17 November, that would be a violation, the passage of midnight somewhere in the world notwithstanding. I wouldn't call this a loophole. A user in this situation might be ready to go with another revert at 13:00 on the 17th, but would have to wait several hours. The rule doesn't eliminate edit wars, it just tones them down. The hope is that the toning down would create a better atmosphere for reaching a resolution. JamesMLane 18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, of course, with people who "game" the system. See WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system. Maybe it's time to expand 3RR to state that 4 reversions in one day, or 8 reversions (7RR?) in one (7 day) week are a violation? In any event, people engaging in reverts like this should either try to gain consensus, or seek mediation or a third opinion. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 23:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Weren't you just blocked for making ten reverts to my talk page, in one day? Andy Mabbett 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages and User Pages aren't covered under 3RR, POTW. Karmafist 16:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is another thing I'd like to see changed (both having user-space talk pages (not user space articles, but actual talk/discussion pages) subject to 3RR (or any similar rule) as well as considering it vandalism to remove warnings from your talk page (especially warnings that lead to discipline)). —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong again, Karmafist. Andy Mabbett 15:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

He's not wrong, actually. It would be nice if he was though, since you would have violated that rule repeatedly by now. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 15:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

He's not wrong, actually.: Cite? Andy Mabbett 16:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR#User_pages —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 17:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Specificaly..? BTW, please don't use deprecated HTML in your sig. It shows great discourtesy to people with visual impairments and other conditions. Andy Mabbett 17:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The rule doesn't do *ANYTHING*. Check out that all-august-long revert war on Bill Oddie. Additionally, the 3RR page, last time i looked, even said it's not appropriate to attempt to game it. Reverting is bad. 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. But, it never gets used that way, it ALWAYS gets used as an entitlement. *sigh*. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmm chicken)} 13:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting is bad: It is also sometimes necessary, for example when people keep insisting that someone is a native of a town that they didn't move to, until mid-way through their childhood. Or when they insist that somewhere is not part of a conurbation of which it is part. Or keep removing a NPoV tag from a page whose neutrality is hotly disputed. Or, in Karmafist's case, when they can use it as a threat to get their way. Oh, hang on... Andy Mabbett 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You use 3RR to push your POV which is explicitly not what it's for. If you make an edit and someone reverts it you should try to discuss the change before pushing it through via repeated reversions (see WP:1RR). If you disagree after discussing it with the person who reverted you, you should try to gain consensus by presenting evidence that your edit makes more sense. Simply pushing things through will not work and is how revert wars are began. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There was discussion in each case; except one. The one where Karmafist made his threat. Andy Mabbett 15:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean the discussion in the edit summaries? IME, it's rare that you actually talk on someones talk page in a cordial or cooperative manner, and it's equally rare when you don't leave a snide, argumentative edit summary. Rarely do you explain your edits, but when reverted, you immediately demand explanation for the reversion (problematic, because you haven't yet explained your edits in the first place typically). —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 15:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I note that your E is EL - extremely limited; which might explain the fatuousness of your comment. Andy Mabbett 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about now? —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 15:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

QED. Andy Mabbett 16:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Clearly this is something only you understand. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 17:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. For those of you who don't know POTW's sordid history, please check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing

This thread has been entered into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence, thanks for discussing this loophole in the 3RR Rule. Karmafist 03:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I note that you continue to spout abuse. Andy Mabbett 15:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I note you still haven't responded to your RFAr. If Karmafist is abusing you, you should be able to present convincing evidence of that there, as well as be able to provide rebuttal evidence aginst the supposed false allegations of abuse. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 15:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no if; and I have already presented evidence of his abusive comments and behaviour, on the appropriate pages. BTW, please don't use deprecated HTML in your sig. It shows great discourtesy to people with visual impairments and other conditions. Andy Mabbett 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I've seen the pages where you present this "evidence" and you have in fact presented nothing at all except your misreading of English. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 15:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that this loophole is unavoidable. No matter what changes you make to the particular numbers involved, there will always be some point after which the number of reverts a user has made in the last X period of time will decrement by one. What amazes me is how some people are surprised by this.

If you really want to solve the problem, then perhaps the entire concept of limiting users to a specific number of reverts in a certain time period needs to be rethought. I admit I don't have any specific alternatives to offer, but realizing the problem exists is step one. Kurt Weber 00:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Deprecated HTML

Font tags are still acceptable in XHTML 1.0, and if they are used for purely visual presentation purposes, then there is no real harm in them—they degrade gracefully much like CSS rules (although they sure can clutter up the wikitext in a talk page). —Michael Z. 2005-11-23 19:37 Z

This is one of Andy's methods at derailing a conversation. Pay it no mind. (This must be the 6th time he's told/asked me to remove the FONT tags from my sig; it borders on disruption that he repeatedly asks IMO). —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 19:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I note that you again choose to make a dishonest personal attack, rather than discuss the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett 12:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the policy

"As the point of the 3RR is to prevent the continuation of stale edit wars, only report the violation to WP:AN/3 if it is less than 72 hours old. Enforcement of the 3RR is intended as a corrective, rather than punitive measure."

In light of User:SEWilco's reporting of no less than eleven (and counting) "to be treated as 3RR violations" of a single user, up to and including a month and a week old, and the general consensus at WP:AN/3 being that it is ridiculous to dredge up ancient 3RR violation, I'm proposing this addition, in line with WP:3RR#Intent of the policy. If someone's causing trouble over a period greater than three days, they'll either violate 3RR again or be in trouble for other reasons. Trying to get people blocked by dragging up old 3RRs is more of a disruption than the original edit war - SoM 21:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• The first sentence is m:instruction creep. Wikipedia doesn't believe in strict limits such as "72 hours". The second sentence sounds very obvious to me, and as such I'd have no objection to having it added some place. Radiant_>|< 22:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What if it was extended or vagued up a bit? ('sides 3/24 isn't a strict limit?) I really want something in the text about dredging stuff up from a week or more back. - SoM 23:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • We don't really need anything, since I presume most admins will just ignore the kind of thing that is being dredged up at present. -Splash^talk 23:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the goal is stopping the admins, it's pre-empting the bad-faith tactic of dredging up old incidents and po-facedly claiming that it's a matter of enforcing literal policy.

(Yep - SoM 00:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

You could couple a restatement of the intent of the policy:

• "Given that the policy is intended to stop edit wars, not mete out punishment"

or something like that, with:

• "therefore, reports dredging up old incidents long past their sell-by date applicability/relevance to this policy...

• ...are pointless.
• ...will not be looked upon kindly.
• ...will be treated as a WP:POINT violation.
• ...will be mocked mercilessly.
• ...will be sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.

Not a great deal of instruction creep, which is always inevitable given the propensity by some to look for loopholes. Somewhere David Gerard commented that ArbCom decisions can be pretty complex because they're always having to say, "No, you can't do THAT, either." --Calton | Talk 00:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Only on condition you leave the Hitchhikers reference in :)

In other words, I'd be fine with that. - SoM 00:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Has the ArbComm stated that the penalties for parole are "intended to stop edit wars, not mete out punishment?" (SEWilco 05:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

What does ArbCom have to do with this? Answer: nothing. It also seems to have escaped your notice that those who've expressed opposition to adding this statement about people posting past-their-sell-by-date reports are doing so on the grounds of common sense; namely that this tactic is too obviously bogus to be worth being specific about.

In any case, pay close attention to the highlighted portion of the next quote, from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule:

The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars.

I hope this clears things up. If you have any objections to this policy-intention statement, perhaps you can state them in the form of a sentence which is not a rhetorical question (which would be an interesting change of pace). --Calton | Talk 06:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer: The ArbComm issued a ruling stating requirements during parole, and what the penalty is for violations. Clarification has been requested for those needing clarification. (SEWilco 03:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

If you have any objections to this policy-intention statement, perhaps you can actually state them instead of changing the subject. Thanks in advance. --Calton | Talk 05:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd strongly support the Hitchhikers' clarification. A hard-and-fast time limit rule is unecessary bureaucratic instruction creep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the spirit of this: the intent is not punitive, it's a cooling off period. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto (and I have been on both ends) Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 00:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Not intending to preempt this discussion -- I hadn't noticed it until a moment ago -- I've already made a much vaguer edit in the same general spirit to the 3RRHeader pseudo-template thingie. (Why isn't that text simply on the incidents page itself, btw?) It seemed reasonable to do this on the basis of the apparent unanimity on the page that old violations weren't reasonably blockable. Though that's of course not directly a change to the policy as such. If anyone feels this is premature, excessive, insufficient, etc, then please revert merrily. Up to thrice, even! Alai 20:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• The place this belongs is WP:AN/3RR. That's where admins get told about 3RR violations; they can be trusted to ignore ancient ones, as has just been shown. If an admin feels applying a block will stop an edit war, the block will be applied; if the admin feels otherwise, it won't. It would be an odd admin who would feel that a month-old 3RR violation would stop an edit war. A note on AN/3RR should suffice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As someone who was recently blocked for 24 hours over a 5 day old 3RR violation, I gotta agree that this language is necessary. I don't have any problem with the 72 hour specification either (instruction creep or not), though I think it should be shorter; 36-48 hours perhaps? As the proposed second sentence suggests, the point of 3RR is to end a revert war and give people time to cool off. —Locke Cole 01:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

A discussion on the reformulation of the 3RR policy

A discussion on the reformulation of the 3RR policy is taking place here: Wikipedia:Policypedia/Edit_warring. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR when its not an actual revert, just a change

I would like to know what the policy is when someone else is changing a page dramatically in acts of vandalism and you are merely trying to diplomatically reach a compromise. Does it count as a violation of 3RR when you are not actually reverting, and are not writing what was originally there, but rather a compromise between the two? Is there a policy on this? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

As I read the above statement, there are a couple of separate questions.

First, with respect to vandalism–genuine vandalism, as defined at Wikipedia:Vandalism–you can revert that as frequently as is necessary.

Second, when someone makes dramatic edits–perhaps with a specific POV in mind–that's not vandalism within our strict definitions. Hash it out on the talk page or use a request for comment to seek the opinions of other editors. The 3RR does not apply when you don't restore an article to a previous form. That is, if you attempt to merge in the other edits or reach a compromise, the 3RR does not enter into play.

Note that admins will enforce the 3RR for so-called 'complex' reverts, where an editor uses several consecutive edits to revert to a preferred previous article version. In general, if you're concerned that your actions might run afoul of the 3RR rule, it's a good idea to take a bit of a break and seek outside opinions; even if you're not violating policy you may not be engaging in the best dispute resolution strategy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that's why I am writing here, and wrote in a few people's talk pages to see what they think. By the way, a lot of the edits were just blanking the entire article, while others were changing all of one name to a different name. Some were just wiping out huge sections of text. Not all of them were vandalism per the definition of what vandalism is, only about 1/2-3/4 were. Anyway, they then put in a request for page protection and then nominated it for an AFD, and got all of their friends to vote "delete" (all with no edit history outside of the article), insisting that they didn't like that the article exists. Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point seemed to apply, but apparently not enough people referred to that for it to be a speedy keep and it is going through the full process. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's no biggie for an article to be on AfD for a week. The notice will come off the page at that time, and any further renominations will be strongly discouraged. You can continue to edit and improve the article as usual even while it is being considered for deletion. Don't worry about a bunch of sockpuppets/meatpuppets with brand-new accounts showing up to vote—the admin closing the deletion discussion can discount suspiciously new voters. (It may help if you leave a note in small text under each new account, briefly explaining that the above comment is this editor's first edit.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Page revert in stages counts as one revert or many?

I had a question about 3RR. My initial reading would be that it means restoring the same thing three times. However, what happens if someone takes an altered page and restores it to an original condition using several edits? I might myself do this where complex changes have been made to a page some of which are desireable to keep, some not. I would imagine this would particularly apply to any page subject to very high activity where it might be virtually impossible to prepare a new version before someone else created an edit conflict. But it can be simply easier to re-edit in several goes.

So, how do five edits made to restore the same page to one original condition count?

Similarly, if over the course of a day five edits are made reverting different points, though at different times in response to changes by different people (i.e. not simply reverting one event slowly, as above, but restoring five different events about different sections, but overall only restoring everything one time). How would that count?

Next question: If someone creates alternate brand-new versions of a disputed section each time and inserts them, does this count as reversion? Sandpiper 10:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is my interpretation of the rule as it applies to this case:

1) It says that reverting a single page in whole or in part no more than 3 times. Now, if it takes you 5 edits to do the reversion or 1 edit, it doesn't matter. Those 5 edits combined count as 1 revert. Ergo, if you do 3 lots of 5 edits, then that's your 3 reverts.

2) If they have made 5 wrong things, and you revert them all in one go, that counts as 1 revert. (e.g. if they blank the page by blanking each section, and you then restore the whole page, then that's 1 revert - although actually that's a bad example since that's vandalism and doesn't count).

I think I didn't quite say what I meant. I make five separate reversions of five different alterations made by different people all during one day. So overall, no part of the article has been reverted more than once, but there have been five separate partial reverts. Do they all count as making up one revert, or five? Sandpiper

This is where discretion comes in to it. In my opinion, you have effectively only made 1 reversion, whether you made it in 5 steps or not. I mean, if you think about it logically, you *COULD HAVE* done all of that in 1 reversion. So in my opinion there is no question that it counts as 1 reversion. If someone disagrees, I think that you have a good argument to put forward Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that would have been my opinion too, but it the sort of situation where there may be disagreemnt, once you start to think about it. I can take that as a definitive....opinion, then. Sandpiper 01:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

3) No, that counts as edit warring. If they are brand new versions of a disputed section, a different writing each time, its not reversion. You can revert their edits though, but them making these changes is not reversion. Them making such big changes, especially to a disputed question, may cause other problems however.

Ok, so what is the relevant policy on edit warring then? Sandpiper

Eek, I'd have to look. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I had a look too, can't remember what it said, probably something like Eek. Sandpiper 01:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that help? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

yes but....

Well, you weren't banned, were you? So you must have been okay. Violations of 3RR get you a 24 hour block. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think I was in any danger of being banned, but coming across the situation was wanting to get a precise understanding of the rules. But wiki is not...precise definitions of rules. Sandpiper 22:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Reversions

When copyrighted material is added to an article Wikipolicy says to revert to a version which does not include the copyrighted material. However, there is no stated exception to 3RR for removing copyrighted material - and it isn't listed as a a type of vandalism (or not vandalism for that matter). Should we expand the 3RR exception to 'simple vandalism and copyright violations', define copyright violations as a type of vandalism, or leave as is and potentially block users for reverting copyright violations? The issue came up recently when an admin was given a 24 hour block for violating 3RR where some (but not all) of the text reverted out was an admitted copyright violation. Which introduces a secondary issue - if an update includes some text which is copyright violation and some which is not is it incumbent on the reverter to identify the non-copyrighted text and leave it in place or may they revert the whole without worrying about 3RR (assuming there is consensus that copyright reverts shouldn't fall under 3RR in the first place)? --CBD ☎ ^✉ 12:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

reverts of pure copyrighted aditions should probably be allowed. Mixed no.Geni 13:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)