Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archived poll that was created in response to a proposal. Voting took place between 14 November 2004 and 28 November 2004. The outcome led to the current form of the 'three-revert rule' policy.

The result was:

Those supporting the proposal: 159
Those against the proposal: 28

7 people also stated they wanted their concerns addressed. Anthony DiPierro has disputed whether or not these should be considered votes; in any case, 3 of the people choosing this also voted supporting or opposing the proposal.

This is a proposal to allow administrators to block users if they violate the three revert rule (3RR). The reason for this proposal is that the Arbitration Committee members (as a whole) want to reduce the load of 3RR violation cases they see.

Text of the proposal

If you violate the three revert rule, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours.
In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.

(Remember, the three revert rule says don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. This is understood not to include reverting cases of clear vandalism.)

Note: There are proposed amendments to this proposal at Talk#Proposed qualifier and Talk#Proposed modification.

Yes

I am personally endorsing and promoting this proposal, because I think that revert warring has become an absurd drain on us, and it has not worked for it to be a mere guideline of politeness, nor has it proved effective for the ArbCom to consider every single case of this. Violation of the 3RR is widely considered to be a problem in the community, even by those who are the worst violators. Jimbo Wales 03:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  1. Jimbo Wales 03:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 03:07, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Martin 03:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (caveat: wikipedia:blocking policy obviously applies, which states Note that block wars, in which a user is repeatedly blocked and unblocked, are extremely harmful. If there is serious disagreement over whether a user should be blocked, err on the side of leaving them unblocked, and consult the arbitration committee for an authoritative ruling on the matter.)
  4. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:09, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 03:09, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Of course. --Conti|✉ 03:13, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 03:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. — Dan | Talk 03:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Rje 03:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Mattworld 03:19, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Whoops, looked away and missed out on voting 4th. James F. (talk) 03:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  12. Antandrus 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. Graham ☺ | Talk 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. ClockworkTroll 03:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. Danny 03:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) with the addendum that I like Gzornenplatz's addition.
  16. Elian 03:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. Reene (リニ) 03:26, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Shane King 03:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Definitely. ugen64 03:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    toastedmunchkin 03:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Invalid vote, user has two edits. Neutralitytalk 03:52, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Support, but we must watch to make sure that it is applied stringently. (moved vote from No) --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  21. Sillydragon 03:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Also like Gzornenplatz's addition)
  22. Jayjg 03:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  23. Cool Hand Luke 04:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  24. Cyan 04:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  25. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 04:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Yes Because he told me too. You know who you are!
  26. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 04:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  27. Viriditas 04:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  28. Flockmeal 04:14, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  29. Support strongly. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  30. the Epopt 04:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  31. honk honk here comes the banmobile silsor 04:20, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  32. func(talk) 04:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  33. Cyrius|✎ 04:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  34. toot toot here comes the S.S. Edit War Ashiibaka tlk 05:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  35. Definitely! SWAdair | Talk 05:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  36. YES! RickK 05:14, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  37. Support Duk 05:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  38. Support. Jimbo sums it up the best. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:56, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
    • I would like to see some of the concerns of this proposals opponents addressed if possible, though. →Iñgólemo← | (talk) 06:26, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
  39. Yes. Didn't we already have this vote? Dori | Talk 06:29, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  40. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 07:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  41. DanKeshet
  42. Support Strongly Arminius 08:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  43. Blatant vandalism could be reverted by anyone, POV-material is a part of edit wars and may not. Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 09:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  44. I support this. For clarity, the above text should mention that multiple reverts are okay when dealing with vandalism. Kosebamse 09:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  45. Robin Patterson 09:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) supporting the Arbitrators
  46. Support. No more than 3 rvts to the same page with 24 hours is not too much to ask. Forcing people to wait a while often produces better results, especially if they are overly passionate about the subject. Martin TB 10:52, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  47. Angela. 11:12, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  48. Zero 11:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) with comments: (1) reverts with very trivial changes should count as reverts, (2) the blocking policy should allow sysops to block someone for more than 24 hours if they keep coming back to the same reverts after their blockage ends, (3) don't like Gzornenplatz's addition, but may block should be should block.
  49. Luc "Somethingorother" French 11:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  50. Iain 12:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  51. Fred Bauder 12:53, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  52. Kaihsu 13:08, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
  53. My strongest support. Rhobite 13:35, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  54. CheekyMonkey 13:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  55. Tannin 13:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Yes, of course there will be unjust bans once in a while. But, seriously, who is going to die if disconnected from the 'pedia for 24 hours? Support.
  56. William M. Connolley 14:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC).
  57. older≠wiser 14:07, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  58. Tuf-Kat 15:00, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  59. Tagishsimon (talk)
  60. 15:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
  61. Mozzerati 15:20, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC) but; the editing guides should all be clear that more than one revert a day is a bad idea.
  62. Hephaestos|§ 15:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  63. Charles Matthews 16:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  64. Cimon 17:02, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) - (with the hope that it will be applied evenhandedly and above all, as strictly as possible; man the talkpages, please)
  65. Mrwojo 17:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  66. sannse (talk) 17:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  67. [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 18:01, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) Reverting is often unconstructive, if neccesary someone else can always revert.
  68. Good idea. --Lst27 (talk) 18:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  69. —No-One Jones (m) 18:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  70. OH GOD YES, PLEASE. (Though I'd like the exception for unambiguous vandalism.) - David Gerard 18:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  71. Flowers will sing and children will bloom across Wikipedia if this passes. Bryan 18:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  72. llywrch 18:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  73. Cribcage 18:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  74. Yes, unless the revert is reverting actual obvious vandalism (eg. placing goatse pictures on the page repeatedly *cough plazzle cough*. Oven Fresh 19:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  75. Support. 172 20:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  76. Yes. I'll refrain from adding to that yes. zoney ♣ talk 20:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  77. Support. Andries 21:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  78. Michael Snow 21:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  79. Yes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  80. Support. violet/riga (t) 22:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  81. Totally. I completely agree with reducing the strain on anyone who tries to deal with vandalism. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 22:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  82. Yes. The current solution of blocking pages unfairly treats offenders and non-offenders equally and only postpones, but doesn't stop, POV warriors. Gamaliel 22:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  83. Yes. if this applies to 3 reverts of one page(one revert should be enough anyway) also I think 2 users shown to be in collusion who together violate the rule ("hey, I reverted this page twice already, go revert it for me ok, lambchop? sure thing charleyhorse, whatevah you say") -- Pedant
    I don't appreciate your implication. Lambchop 02:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    You know that you are always the ring leader, Lambchop. Charley Horse just goes along with whatever you say. func(talk) 02:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    LOLZ SHARY LOUISE DIED HAHAHAHA!!!! OMGLOLWTF!!!!11! LAMBCHOP DUDE, SHARY DIED HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!11111 AND CHARLEYHORSE ROXXXX!!!!1111111111eleven --Node 02:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    How would you propose that 2 users "shown to be in collusion" would be distinguished from "2 users who happen to agree on a particular set of edits being bad and better off reverted"? On Wikipedia:Three revert rule it says "... being reverted by two or more people demonstrates that the reversions are not a one man crusade, but something closer to a consensus." How is consensus, that which we are trying to encourage, to be distinguished from "collusion"? I fear that, as with much of this proposal, the answer is "Automagically!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    'Shown to be in collusion' was what I said, not 'alleged to be in collusion'... I don't think it's necessary to explain all the different ways 2 users can be shown to be in collusion (and how they can avoid being caught at it). I'm a firm believer in consensus, but I've seen vandalism done to freeway signs that were 50 feet up in the air and surrounded by razor wire. Vandals love to help each other, it gives them an appreciative audience, and 2 vandals working together can sometimes frustrate the efforts of scores of people. temporarily.Pedant
  84. Yes, however we need to have a system to prevent legit repeat reversion of vandalism. --Node 02:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  85. Yes. --Fadookie 03:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  86. Approve, we do need enforce more the strictly the three revert rule.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 03:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  87. RoseParks 05:55, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  88. Approve, with reservations. I'd rather it read: "Admins may block for obvious revert-warring." We ought to know it when we see it. Make 'em go to the talk page, period. Mackensen (talk) 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  89. JohnyDog 04:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  90. Delirium 07:27, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC) Limits the damage any one person can do.
  91. Aphaea 08:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  92. ~leif (talk)[[]] 08:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) yes, enforce 3RR.
  93. Wyllium 09:29, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
  94. Ce garcon Yes, enforce 3RR... but then there needs to be way to distinguish edit warriors from users who are reverting actual vandalism. --Ce garcon 09:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  95. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 09:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  96. Vote Yes. Susvolans 11:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  97. JRM 11:57, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC) Yes, emphatically. Everybody refers to it but nobody seems to actually abide by it. Re indisputable vandalism: ask people to help you, or else mention you're violating the rule (admins are not going to block you if it's "indisputable", chances are they'll help you). Three reverts ought to be enough for anybody, as Bill Gates never said.
  98. OK, my faith in the system is satisfied. Support. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  99. YES. Shorne 12:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) Although I agree that there are some small problems with this proposal, I want something very clear-cut to be instituted immediately. Anything wishy-washy will play right into the hands of villains like VeryVerily who have the nerve to violate the three-revert rule many times a day without even the pretence of trying to resolve disputes. Shorne 12:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  100. YES The policy will evolve to work out any remaining small issues. --mav 13:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  101. Morwen - Talk 14:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  102. Support. — Matt 17:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  103. Warofdreams 18:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  104. Support - Amgine 19:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  105. Indeed. Seems like a fair way to promote healthy reversion. Pax 21:10, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  106. Agreed. What use is a rule that is not enforced?--Josiah 21:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  107. Support for reasons mentioned. - Lucky 6.9 22:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  108. Oh yes. Exception for fighting vandalism would be good, however -- Chris 73 Talk 23:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  109. —siroχo 23:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  110. Gentgeen 05:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  111. No Guru 05:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  112. So be it. Andre (talk) 18:22, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  113. Maurreen 18:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  114. Incidentally, if any of you are fighting vandalism and you use up your three reverts, let me know and I'll take over for you. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:28, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  115. Admin judgement is important here, anyone banned for fighting REAL vandalism (not just something you've decided is vandalism because you don't like it) via reverts, send me a message and I'll see what I can do. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:17, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  116. Absolutely (as long as admins aren't immune from the ban themselves)[[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 00:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  117. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:09, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
  118. Yes, I hate revert wars. Timbo 06:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  119. Most definitely, its about time we adopt such a policy. GeneralPatton 07:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  120. Sponge! 07:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  121. DV 08:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  122. Assuming distinction between fixing vandalism and edit-warring --Phil | Talk 08:35, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  123. Yes, though I think some qualifiers are in order. --Jake 08:45, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
  124. Yes! Waltmarkers 09:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  125. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  126. Waerth 14:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  127. Impi 16:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  128. AlanBarrett 17:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC). I would expect admins to use their discretion not to block people who revert vandalism more than three times. I would expect reverts that also make other changes to be included in the count.
    • I think admins are smart enough for that. We don't pick morons. --Golbez 08:29, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  129. Chazzoz 22:51, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  130. Snowspinner 04:38, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  131. ElBenevolente 07:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  132. Golbez 08:29, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  133. Samaritan 09:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  134. Yes. Even so, I can foresee all the gaming, small good edits that get blamed, bad calls by prejudiced sysops, .... But gosh! We are all human! And there is a real problem here with people who repeatedly reduce good documented and cited paragraphs with slanted personal research--over and over. It would be much better for the sysops to ban both the bad guy :) and me who is trying to protect the Crown jewels :( than to let the edit war continue. It is only for just 24 hours, after all! We need to be putting our attention on inventive work-arounds to the "bad editors" not putting our time into reverting.  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  135. Yes. And what Rednblu said. --sabre23t 04:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  136. Yes. I have read the things brought up by people who say no as well. Many of the things they bring up would water the rule down to where it is unenforceable. As a practical matter, if it is watered down and made too vague it will never be applied. Some admins say people might accidentally revert a page 4 times in 24 hours. This is true, but I myself almost never do this because I check carefully when I unfortunately am in a revert war with someone. And I can survive for the one to twenty-four hours I have to wait to revert the page again to get it back to what I believe is NPOV. If someone is truly vandalizing it, instead of there being a disagreement over how Gdansk (Danzig) is spelled, there are a variety of means to get users and admins involved. This rule is one of the best tripwires for POV warriors and vandals - they just can't help breaking it. It is one of the best methods of dealing in the short term with disruptive people on Wikipedia. Ruy Lopez 06:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  137. Yes. andy 13:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  138. After Jimbo's clarification about clear vandalism: Yes. Eugene van der Pijll 16:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  139. Fredrik | talk 23:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  140. Should be enforced. - Vague | Rant 11:43, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  141. Aerion 18:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  142. FirstPrinciples 05:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  143. Yes, but absolutely not automatically. Sysops should take care to understand the subtleties of any dispute; ISTM that it's very possible to break the 3-revert-rule accidentally. Dbiv 13:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  144. Yes. Now that the revert rule is clarified. Jallan 17:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  145. Yes. Marcika 00:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  146. Following clarification of the rule, support with a bit of trepidation. I think our sysops are good enough to not abuse this policy, but if abuse happens there should be some sort of remedy. --Goobergunch 02:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  147. Proteus (Talk) 12:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  148. TomPhil 14:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  149. Wikimol 18:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  150. ilya 04:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) As far as I understand the rule will not apply to obvious vandalism and self-reverts.
  151. bdesham 04:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  152. Yes. The Land 10:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  153. jpgordon{gab} 01:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  154. Decumanus 09:09, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
  155. Subject to concern expressed in the appropriate section below. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 21:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  156. Clawed 07:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  157. Yes. Charm ©† 18:19, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC). No matter how specific the policy, there is always a need for judgement and exceptions. We need to assume our admins act in good faith. If they don't, then we pursue dispute resolution with that admin. Charm ©†
  158. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  159. Support. --Randy 03:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No

  1. The "may" and the "up to" invites unequal and arbitrary enforcement. I would support a policy that says If you violate the three revert rule, sysops must block you for 24 hours. That means, if a violation is pointed out to a sysop who is obviously present, that sysop could not refuse to block the offender. Gzornenplatz 03:22, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • I haven't read any rule here on wikipedia which starts with "A sysop must..." yet. A sysop is not forced to remove vandalism if it is pointed out to him, but still almost every sysop removes vandalism on sight. Saying "you must" is pretty much impossible to enforce. --Conti|✉ 03:31, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • What is hard to enforce? We could say a sysop who flatly refuses to follow the policy will be desysopped. Gzornenplatz 03:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • The only way to refuse to follow this policy is to block one participant and not the other. Sysops shouldn't considered in violation of the policy if one user demands the blocking of his/her enemy and the sysop refuses. If the situation is legit, there are plenty of other admins to contact. Neutralitytalk 03:42, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
          • If there's an edit war where both sides violated the 3RR, then one sysop who sympathizes with one side could block only the other side, which would end the edit war and thus no other sysop would take notice, and the one who is blocked obviously couldn't contact any admin. Gzornenplatz 03:48, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
            • The propsal says: "In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops should treat both sides equally". Maybe it should be "sysop have to treat both sides equally" here, because I too think that this is important. --Conti|✉ 03:52, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
              • Changing the wording to "a sysop will" may answer Gzornenplatz' concern without putting any individual sysop under a particular obligation, which would then fall on sysops generally as a group. jguk 14:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • The text should indeed be changed to "will" or "must". "Should" is a fig leaf for any abuse that occurs. Indeed, any sysop who feels entitled to use his powers as a device for taking sides has no goddam business being a sysop in the first place and should be removed. Shorne 13:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Sysops do not have duties in particular, only as a whole and overall to the Community at large, and such a sea-change in the direction of policy is terribly major. A minor copy edit to policy it is not. James F. (talk) 03:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • It's high time they get some, and this is as good a place as any to start. Making sysops accountable to actually do their duty will make adminship less attractive and keeps the wrong kind of people away, i.e. those who just seek power or prestige. I'm sure there would still be enough volunteers. Gzornenplatz 03:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree. Get rid of the deadwood, including the arbitrators—all of them—who do not consider themselves to have any particular duties. Put in the right kinds of people; dump the hangers-on. I would support a change from "may" to "must". Shorne 12:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. No, because of the intemperate enforcement I've seen of the Anthony agreement. If any admin could undo it and it would then have to stay undone until there was consensus, that would be a different matter. Jamesday 03:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If there has been intemperate enforcement in the Anthony case, and I don't really agree with that, it has been primarily due to the ambiguity of what it is he's not supposed to do. The nice thing about 3RR is that there is really no ambiguity about it. Gzornenplatz's concern is not compelling to me because with 300+ sysops, only 1 is required to do the right thing, and so it seems quite unlikely that enforcement will be uneven. Is it really going to be impossible to find even 1 sysop who will enforce the rule in a given case? Of all the policies we have, there are very very few which are are simple to evaluate as a violation of 3RR. Jimbo Wales 03:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Indeed, but that makes my point. Since it's clear-cut whether or not someone has violated the 3RR, there's no need to allow any subjective sysop judgements. Yet that's what your proposal would do. Sysops would "overlook" violations by people they like, and be quick to block people they don't. Moreover, the "up to" means that they may give short token blocks to people they like and the full 24 hours to those they don't. Gzornenplatz 03:59, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • In the Anthony case I think of things like: an admin blocking him for 24 hours for listing on Votes for Undeletion a page which was speedy deleted as patent nonsense when it was an entirely understandable dictionary definition, after discussion where it turned out that three people thought it was a speedy delete candidate and three didn't. Or blocking for 24 hours for making the same one word comment in a keep vote in VfD that the lister made in their listing. In the case of this policy: blocking everyone who reverts three times is inappropriate, while in some cases, it's a necessary tool. Yet the policy as proposed lets the most aggressive admins overrule the more moderate admins. It (and all policy) should be written so that the moderate voices prevail where there is disagreement. Jamesday 04:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Why is it inappropriate to block everyone who violates the rule? When should it be a necessary tool other than in case of vandalism? Gzornenplatz 04:29, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
          • Agree with Gzornenplatz. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Moving vote to Yes, with caveat. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • But you answered the first question with the second. It's sometimes necessary to violate the three revert rule in the case of vandalism (although I'd also add some cases which aren't even really vandalism). And we can't define vandalism tightly enough to make such an exception and still have fair enforcement. But my main concern is that this will give too much power to trolls, especially those with multiple accounts and/or IP addresses. A troll could remove an oppose vote on a popular user from VFA, calling it a personal attack because it says something as innocuous as "I don't trust this user". And that wouldn't even count as vandalism. Just one example off the top of my head, there are countless others. anthony 警告 20:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. The three-revert rule is a rule that many people break intentionally with malice aforethought. But it's also a rule that is very easy to break unintentionally, especially by people who are merely trying to limit the damage caused by the people acting in bad faith. The way the proposal is written, it's an invitation for trouble; instead of discouraging the bad actors, it encourages the bad actors to try and goad the good actors into making mistakes for which the bad actors can then demand punishment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. I Couldn't agree more with Antaeus Feldspar. Excellently said. Wifki 07:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. I am of the firm belief that multiple reverts are silly, but I have three points I'd like to make on this. First, I think this will turn revert wars into a contest of who can push the other into violating - it may actually encourage that behavior. Second, what happens when one edit warrior makes subtle changes during each revert (for example, changing a single word) so that the diffs are not exactly identical? Did they violate 3RR? Third, there is nothing in the policy to handle when a sysop and a non-sysop are the ones edit-warring. The sysop can make the block legally under this rule, but may themselves be a party in the edit war. I think that creates a harmful environment. -- Netoholic @ 04:45, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
    • Regarding subtle changes, see Talk: page. Jayjg 05:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • And regarding admins involved in the dispute - there is a long standing rule that admins do not act in a dispute they are directly involved in. I see no reason why this wouldn't apply here too. -- sannse (talk) 14:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. I don't know what I'm supposed to do when somebody adds garbage to an article I care about. All too often, nobody helps me out in reverting and nobody protects an article when I need someone else to do it. Yes, I'm sure they would if I was watching George W. Bush, but I'm not. So I think we shouldn't have a three revert rule, and instead we should block troublemakers and congratulate reasonable contributors who are willing to devote their time to defend articles. In cases where neither side is clearly in the right, the article should simply be protected. Everyking 05:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The problem is that everyone always thinks the other side are the troublemakers. Shane King 05:10, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • Just the same, in most cases I see it's pretty clear. Adding blatant POV, removing info without taking account reasonable objections, or plain vandalism. Everyking 05:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. I don't agree because I think it would get in the way of removing vandalism, and therefore encourage it. For example, I am not an sysop, but I spend a lot of time dealing with vandalism and although I have never had to break the 3RR, others had and I wouldn't want to be blocked for, basically, dealing with vandalism. I think it should stay just as a guideline.--Honeycake 06:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    1. But you don't need to break the rule to deal with vandalism. You can list the page on Vandalism in progress to enlist the help of others. There are always more regular users than there are vandals, so no one user ever needs to break the three revert rule to deal with it. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 08:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      1. This is probably true, Theresa. I wonder what your view is, though, of the possibility of an editor with a track record -- I won't name names -- who makes an edit an admin does not like and is reverted. The admin need not even discuss why they chose to revert the edit. Get to three and the admin can wield the power of blocking as a tool to prevent the editor from further edits. I note that in the discussion on this page it is suggested that the admins might be able to use "common sense" in dealing with vandals who cunningly use small textual edits to claim they have not reverted. What's to prevent that "common sense" being stretched a little further? I have this week seen an editor blocked for listing a page for undeletion that was wrongly speedily deleted (and one of the people who voted for keeping it deleted suggesting that it was only a minor indiscretion to ignore the policy) and another editor freely confess to reverting a "vandal" without bothering to read his edit, because other editors had reverted him. Yes, the revert wars have paralysed plenty of good pages in Wikipedia, and there needs to be a means to put an end to them, but power corrupts.Dr Zen 11:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        1. A rogue admin get's three reverts too. The admin would have to revert more than three times in order to provoke the editor to do so. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 21:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          1. But the rogue admin in question need only make a small edit and say that they did not revert, while claiming that the "troll" has "vandalised" the page whether they make a small edit or not, and the editor is blocked. This proposal empowers the bad on both sides, and disables the good.Dr Zen 02:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      2. What if the vandalism is being made on VIP itself? What if it's coming from hundreds of different IP addresses? There may be more regular users than there are vandals, but 1) Vandals can do damage quicker than regular users can clean it up and 2) why should 100 regular users be bothered when 2 or 3 can handle things fine? I've proposed one modification which I think will solve a large part of this concern, and that is to exempt reverts made by anonymous users. But even that wouldn't have exempted the actual case where a user was using open proxies to do the vandalism, because this was being done by logged in users. I support the three revert rule as a guideline. But making it a strict rule is just going to encourage trolls to game the system. anthony 警告 20:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        1. When i see an IP vandalise VIP I block them. I don't think I've ever had to do three reverts in one day in VIP. And quite frankly even if I did it would never come to it. The wording says an admin "may" decide to block me for violating the rule. We are not machines. We don't have to behave like ones. If your senario ever happened, and i was forced to revert multiple attacks on VIP from multiple different adresses, no one would be thinking three revert rule.They'd be thinking " bloody 'ell what can i do to help?" This rule is to deal with edit wars, not vandals. The only time I have ever knowingly broken the three revert rule is when dealing with Wik's vandalbot. During that time, not one person, not even the usual suspects, accused anyone of revert warring or breaking the three revert rule.Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 21:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          1. Sure Theresa, you might not be blocked, but you don't have admins who admit to hating you. I have already been blocked by admins who gave no reason other than the fact that the rules permitted them to block me. Furthermore, even if admins don't enforce this against clear vandalism, there will surely be trolls who make edits which are not clear vandalism but still made in bad faith. This rule gives these trolls far too much power. anthony 警告 21:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    2. I tend to sympathise with Gabriel. I think there should be a little extra leeway for users who revert blatant and unambiguous vandalism in good faith. Noone wants to see construtive users banned because they were trying to protect Wikipedia. -- FirstPrinciples 11:06, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) Jimbo has clarified the position at Wikipedia:Three revert rule so I'm now voting yes. -- FirstPrinciples 05:09, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Same reasons as ever: A vandal need only make their edit four times. People can create sockpuppets, and in my experience have done so. Bad users can gang up on good. Defining a "revert" is difficult when other changes are made, giving the rule a lack of clear definition as to what is acceptable. Also, to what does it apply? Talk pages (where a troll once repeatedly deleted my comments)? A user's own user pages? What if the edit reverted is blanking? Removing a dispute notice? What about IP addresses? Dynamic IP addresses? Does the same IP block count? Etc. VeryVerily 09:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    1. 3RR should be enforced for circumstances other than removing vandalism. Vacuum | tcw
    • Also, does a "self-revert" count as a revert? If you revert your fourth revert "in time" (after an oversight), does that save you, or is it still four reverts, or is it in fact five? VeryVerily 09:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Serial reverter VeryVerily is already looking for loopholes. Maybe just banning VeryVerily would be more useful than instituting this rule.68.109.23.19 14:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • This is nitpicking. A sysop is a sysop because the community trusts his/her judgement. That means, among other things, that a sysop should use his/her judgement to decide in borderline cases. Hard as it may be to believe for certain users, it's rarely a problem to distinguish between good faith actions (including those that may violate the letter of a rule while adhering to its spirit) and bad faith actions (including those that adhere to the letter of a rule with malicious intent). If you don't trust your fellow users, Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. Kosebamse 12:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Nonsense, everyone knows there are bad users here, and not all admins are trustworthy. RfA is not exactly the most stringent test ever; you just hold your breath for a few months, and start havoc after you're promoted. VeryVerily 09:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Kosebamse, I hope you have noticed, even if an admin correctly distinguishes between a good faith action that violates the letter of a rule, and a bad faith action that adheres to the letter and completely violates the spirit, the proposal as written ties their hands and forces them to punish the good faith action? That's precisely why I oppose this proposal; bad faith actors already find ways to violate the rules with impunity and all this proposal does is hand them further ammunition to make the rules an impediment for the good faith actors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • The proposal states: If you violate the three revert rule, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. (emphasis added)
            I don't see how this proposal "ties their hands". Brianjd
      • I hope it is clear to everybody that the three revert rule does not apply in cases of obvious vandalism; don't know however if there is explicit text that says that. As I mentioned with my "yes" vote above, such text should be included if it is not already. Regarding the bad faith users, I am afraid there is no way to make the policies watertight against maliciousness. I absolutely agree that sysops must be given some freedom to act in the spirit of Wikipedia even if that means violating a policy against somebody who has carefully avoided breaking a rule. Kosebamse 19:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Actually the three revert rule explicitly does apply to cases of vandalism. "If you find yourself reverting a considerable quantity of edits by the same user, due to vandalism or edits by a banned user, it may be appropriate to block the user or IP address." At the very least I'd like to see an explicit statement that the arbitration committee may deadmin an admin who repeatedly uses this policy against a user acting in good faith. anthony 警告 21:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I am not sure that we interpret policies in the same way. It is my understanding that reverting against a vandal more than thrice is not considered a violation of our policies, and that in such cases a block against the vandal is appropriate while a block against a user who reverts the vandal is not appropriate. My argument is and remains that sysops need some liberty to make the best use of their responsibility, and that no degree of policy polishing can replace good judgement. That's why only trusted users are made a sysop. Kosebamse 22:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, we interpret this policy differently. As for only trusted users being made sysops... Maybe that's the theory, but there are quite a few sysops who regularly make bad judgements. Maybe they were given sysop privileges before adminship was a big deal, maybe people didn't know enough about them when they became an admin, or maybe people just made the wrong decision, but it's nearly impossible to remove someone's admin powers, so the amount of judgement power we should be giving admins should be limited (and we shouldn't be making statements that they can use their judgement without qualifying it with some means of review for when they invariably make bad judgements. The line between judgement and authority is a very thin one, and "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority" (Wikipedia:Administrators). Also from that page, "The sysops should not have power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users." It seems allowing admins the power to judge which reverts are acceptable and which aren't without any input from the community as a whole is precisely such a forbidden power. anthony 警告 01:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Three revert rule states: Don't revert any article more than three times within a period of 24 hours. This doesn't apply to self-reverts or simple vandalism.
          It appears to be that it explicitly does NOT apply to cases of vandalism. Brianjd
  9. Setting this up allows too much power in the hands of admins who have their own agenda to enforce. In the case of a war between a contributor and an admin it gives the admin a "big stick" with which to enforce his/her viewpoint. Banning the contributor then prevents the contributor from trying to evoke sanctions upon the admin. It is better to have the conflict resolved (once and for all) by arbitration. Before any such rule gets established, we must allow for methods and available procedures for aggrieved contributors to "bring charges" against a renegade admin. This method for contributors to charge admins must be accessible to the contributor while the contributor is banned from making article changes. My recommendations are to: improve arbitration to make it "swift justice", allow challenges to "established law" (the rules) to be initiated by even a lowly contributor, and enhance the "laws" (rules) by basing them on an acceptable moral code of ethics. Without improving the "judicial system" within Wikipedia we will degenerate into the chaos and "survival of the fittest" mentality of anarchy. (Note by Kosebamse: this vote is by User:KeyStroke who did not sign.)
  10. No. "sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." is not so good. If it had said "you will be blocked for 24 hours." it would have been better. Think about revert wars a little. They go like this: Person A inserts content, Person B reverts, Person A reverts, Person B reverts, Person A reverts, Person B reverts. At this point Person B has committed a "Wikipedia crime" even if Person A's content was "Joe is gay". But no sysop will block someone because that person has reverted "Joe is gay" three times. So it becomes a judgement call. Assume Person A's content is something along the lines "Bush is crap" (but better articulated), Person B wont be blocked for reverting that by a pro-Bush sysop. Same thing happens ofcourse if Person A inserts "Kerry is crap" somewhere. So it becomes a judgement call. I don't think sysops in general is capable to do that judgement. Because if they were, the rule could have been "Sysops may block whoever they think deserves to be blocked." Eric B. and Rakim 13:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • That strikes me as a very dim view of the admins here. I've seen plenty of occasions where people have fought for neutrality against their own personal views. I don't think this is a standard too high to expect of people; I wouldn't want an admin who isn't capable of such judgement. Remember, admins can already delete articles, which is much more powerful than the ability to block. Shane King 13:47, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Plus, for every pro-Bush sysop you could find one who's pro-Kerry or pro-Nader or non-involved. There's salways someone who is willing to take a stand regardless of view, or who has the right view to block. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 22:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • But no sysop will block someone because that person has reverted "Joe is gay" three times. I can think of a few admins who would probably block me for something like this. In fact, I've been blocked before by admins who wouldn't defend their block beyond "the rules say I'm allowed to do this." anthony 警告 01:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. No. Would only support if modified. As worded the proposal is either too strict or allows too much latitude to sysops. Sysops, although trying their best to exercise good judgment, will use their discretion in different and inconsistent ways. They may be seen to be taking sides by either using or not using discretion to ban. A fourth 'revert' can be done accidentally - especially as it's a 24 hour rule rather than for 3 reverts per day (timed using UTC). Don't bite the newcomers who will be unsure of this rule and assume good faith. Perhaps warn after a fourth revert, ban after a fifth, banning only after a fourth revert if the 3RR is clearly being broken persistently by that user. I fear on a strict interpretation many of us will get bans sooner or later. jguk 13:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with your sentiment, but one way to avoid "accidently" reverting four times in a 24-hour period is to limit yourself to one revert per day (as in one revert per sunset). The difference between reverting once a day and three times a day is rarely significant anyway. Once you've been reverted twice you're not likely to stop people from reverting you a third time. anthony 警告 21:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  12. No. I think it is a good guideline in spirit, and Jimbo has convinced me to personally follow it as a strict rule (I actually try to limit myself to 1 revert per day), but I think having it as a strict rule allows too much room for abuse. For instance, someone making an unpopular comment on a talk page could easily be censored by even just a single person working from multiple IP addresses or sockpuppet accounts. Sure, that person could try to get help fighting against the anon from multiple other users, but that isn't going to be very easy. Furthermore, if the anon is persistent enough, it'll be impossible to fight against her. And then all it takes is one admin to not like you, and you can be banned. Maybe an exception could be made for reversions of anons. anthony 警告 19:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Surely you mean at most 1 :) Dori | Talk 22:57, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
    If you mean when I said "I try to limit myself to 1 revert per day", I certainly mean at most 1 (which is why I said it was a limit). But, I also mean this as a per-article limit. Since making this rule upon myself a few months ago I can only think of one time I've actually broken it. anthony 警告 01:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. The concerns raised above convince me that it is too easy to avoid, so enforcing it would not be helpful. JesseW 03:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. Reverting pages is a silly reason to be blocked. Brianjd 04:12, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
    Either block the user if the reverts were inappropriate (with an appropriate reason, not "breaking 3RR"), or if they were appropriate (more likely the case), take the appropriate action (block user whose changes were reverted, protect the page, etc). Brianjd 08:00, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
    If the blocks are only for up to 24 hours and the 3RR doesn't apply to "vandalism" (what is vandalism?) all this is going to do is make edit wars slower and less fair, as others have pointed out. Brianjd
  15. I believe this is a well-meaning but misguided attempt to simplify a complex problem. The most serious problem is that this will lead to proliferation of socks. The next most serious problem is that we have already seen that there are problems around the edges: exactly what edits are reverts, exactly what does "in a day mean," what about vandalism reverts, etc. Finally, I dislike the possiblility of blocking good users for inadvertent violations. uc 17:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    It's a public declaration that uncooperative behavior is not tolerated, and as such, a step in the right direction. There are obviously problems around the edges, but there always will be. You can't polish any policy so well that a malicious user has no way of finding a loophole to use against you. That's why sysops need a degree of liberty in their judgement. Kosebamse 18:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    "In a day" has been changed to "in a 24-hour period" FWIW. anthony 警告 21:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. I agree that uncooperative behavior should not be tolerated. Unfortunately I can't support this. What concerns me most is the implication that admins will be expected to enforce the letter of the rule, even if it's against their best judgement. Never forget that the majority of users are pleasant people who rarely if ever get into fights. Because they don't fight much, they don't usually know all the rules for Wikipedia conflict. Battlescarred warriors, on the other hand, learn the rules quickly even if they don't follow them. Do we really want to hand an advantage to those who fight the most? I don't want any admin to feel obliged to ban a good user or a newcomer because our least cooperative users demand that we be "fair." We had such problems when we were enforcing the 3RR rule by Quickpoll, and we'll have them again if we adopt this. Isomorphic 18:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    (As the one who wrote the actual wording of this proposal) - I'd like to reemphasize - If you violate the three revert rule, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. - they are not required to, but it's an option if they think it's necessary. →Raul654 19:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
    So 30 sysops think you shouldn't be blocked, 1 sysop thinks you should be blocked for 24 hours, another for 12 hours, another for 1 hour. What happens? I suppose it depends which sysops are bothered enough about you. jguk 19:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Why does the length of time matter that much? A block is a symbolic slap in the face. It says "we disaprove of your behaviour and we will not tolerate it". That slap is just as hard no matter how long the block lasts. I'll bet one wikikiss that once this rule is put into place, most blocks will be for the full 24 hours. They may be some disagreement that a block should happen at all, but they'll be no quibbling among admins over how long the block should be. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 21:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Perhaps one of the sysops who doesn't think the user should be blocked could block the user for 1 minute. anthony 警告 21:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    That won't happen. We have a block log. So there is no sneaking about it. Let's say for example you and another user were reverting each other. You both went over 3 reverts. I decide to block you for 24 hours and your opponent for 1 minute. What would the AC make of that after you reported me to them? They'd whip my admin powers from me as well they should. This is a very simple rule, it's easy to see when a revert war is going on, it's easy to block all those involved. I don't anticipate many problems Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    That's not at all what I meant. anthony 警告 02:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. This makes me extremely uncomfortable. It's very easy to imagine a scenario where an editor makes four honest reverts in twenty-four hours without being aware of the rule violation. (What if the next one is tomorrow, but I get up unusually early?) I'm afraid that this will result in paranoia rather than being conducive to good editing. If this is to be enforced, it must be posted obviously in many more places than it is right now—unless you want to require that all editors read every single policy page before doing anything (which, considering how many policy pages there are, would be rather ridiculous). Is this really the most important rule on Wikipedia (that it should be enforced without regard for the editor's intention or attempt at communication with that editor regarding the problem)? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 02:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    I can't imagine such a senario. What is you definition of a "honest revert"? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Not only can I imagine it, but it just happened to me. See [1]. It's ridiculous for me to have to post something on Vandalism in progress instead of just waiting ten minutes for the vandal to go away and clicking the "rollback" link. I'm talking about blantantly obvious vandalism here. If we can distinguish between candidates for speedy deletion and VfD candidates, I don't see why we can't distinguish between obvious and possible vandalism. I think that if you're going to block someone for reverting. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  18. I don't think any editor should revert a page more than three times at any time, let alone in a day, but I think this is a charter for on the one hand corrupt admins who have made enemies or have formed factions and will use it as just one more means to punish their opponents and on the other for editors who do not believe in compromise or discussion. I note in the discussion on this page and elsewhere that many think it automatically doesn't apply to vandals. In clearcut cases, that might be desirable, but often times the word "vandal" is used for those editors who make provocative edits, or who allow enthusiasm for a subject to overcome them. I don't see how this policy even begins to address the underlying problems that it aims at. Where an edit war is between two parties, the second need only revert second to assure that their POV will hold (allowing the ridiculous scenario of slower but just as ferociously fought edit wars -- because the opponent will need to wait a day to revert the last edit!). Where it is asymmetric, the majority will prevail whatever the merits of their reversion. None of this will end edit wars, nor will it increase the lacking respect of editors for each other, and I can easily see it being abused by admins who see themselves as on-the-spot arbiters -- Judge Dredds -- rather than functionaries (which in itself is not a great problem but the bitterness it causes is).Dr Zen 02:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    I agree with these concerns and wish to add that this policy, if implemented, should quickly be followed by a proposal for swift action—not mediation and arbitration, six centuries for each—against those who just revert, revert, revert without discussing anything, whether or not they violate the letter of the three-revert rule or other policies. Shorne 21:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Blocking them for 24 hours every time they do it is going to slow them down somewhat. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    As well as slow down those fighting against them. This rule seems to based on the fallacy that those in the majority are willing to discuss things while those in the minority are not. If anything I think the opposite is true. anthony 警告 14:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  19. Juppiter
    Not without clarification. In cases of clear vandalism, this rule should not be enforced. On some pages (mainly new one), there may be only one user with that page in his watchlist, and he will be the only one to clean up after vandals. It's easy to revert a page more than three times in that case. Eugene van der Pijll 09:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) Jimbo has cleared this up at Wikipedia:Three revert rule, so I'm changing my vote to Yes. Eugene van der Pijll 16:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind, though, that a vandalism-reverter will still have three options. (1) He can always wait a day to revert the vandalism. By then, someone else may have reverted it for him. (2) He can ask another user to revert the vandalism for him. I'm always available. Then maybe two users will have it on their watchlists. (3) He can revert anyway, assuming that he won't get blocked for it. This is relatively safe, since most admins have at least some common sense, and in this example no one else has the page on their watch-list, remember? Plus, what's the worst that could happen? So you get blocked for 24 hours, and you read a book or something, and you come back tomorrow. *shrug* So it doesn't seem like a big promblem, IMO. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:41, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Your first two options make it significantly harder to fight vandalism, at least for anyone whose watchlist has a large number of entries. As for 3, this works OK for some users, mostly once who are themselves admins, and it works for absolutely clear vandalism, but the real problem comes up when you get a sneaky vandal who knows about the three revert rule. anthony 警告 14:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  20. The cure is as bad as the disease. We're only hurting ourselves here. As others have pointed out, laws only apply to law-abiding people - I see no benefit, but a lot of potential problems. There should be some level of discretion given - if it's abused, then address it. This is a black & white rule for a very gray situation. RADICALBENDER★ 06:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  21. No, because the three-revert rule leads to the problems that the users who voted "No" above have stated. I'm especially concerned about what happens when, for example, only three people care about an article and it's a 2-to-1 edit war; this unfairly punishes the person in the slight minority. That is only one of my concerns; as I said, the other users voting "No" bring up many good points. When an edit war starts, protecting the page is a better solution than a three-revert rule that is inconsistently and arbitrarily enforced; furthermore, in many cases, it's not clear whether what a user is doing strictly meets the definition of a revert. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 17:20, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    In a 2-1 edit war, perhaps the 1 should file an RfC to get additional support. Or compromise. Or get out of the revert war. I mean, I think we're in rather grave trouble if we're trying to figure out how to make a revert war go longer and be more "fair" for the participants. Snowspinner 22:26, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    In the vast majority of disputes RFC is useless, because an RFC requires a consensus in order to accomplish anything. A compromise is only possible if the other user is willing to discuss things. In my opinion having a three revert rule will only make a revert war last longer and be less fair. anthony 警告 01:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  22. No. Agree with points made by Everyking and Antaeus Feldspar. Also, 3-revert rule is imprecisely defined in several aspects. I would like to see the principle enforced, but an automatic ban after 3 reverts is draconian and probably counter-productive. A 24-hour page-protection is preferable. If behavior persists after unprotection, then a short ban makes sense after a warning. Wolfman 03:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  23. No. This is a charter for abuse by sysops. Chameleon 11:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  24. No. While the concerns by other people against this makes me pause to ponder, I also have a secondary concern with the wording. While running the rambot, in attempting to fix various problems, I have had to do 2 or 3 reverts to a single article and it is conceivable that I could do more. It doesn't happen often, and it is all in the line of trying to fix things. Nevertheless, there are people who only follow the letter of the law and could ban my main user account (I am a sysop, I should probably ban myself!) because I was fixing things. I'd like to see a rephrase of the rule or an exception made. Or at least an exception clause of some sort. -- Ram-Man 23:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Please let me see if I have what you say straight. You oppose the three-revert-rule because you need to revert more than three times sometimes to defend Wikipedia quality against a group of destroyers.  :(( They may be acting in good faith, but the reason you revert is because they are destroying Wikipedia quality. Is that accurate? I am testing a hypothesis. ---Rednblu | Talk 19:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  25. No. --Dittaeva 19:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  26. No. This is as Chameleon correctly points out a charter for abuse by admins. It is again more spurious and unnecessary policy and anti-wiki in tone, sentiment and outcome. Sjc 19:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  27. No. On 18 Nov 2004 the page Scuba diving had to be reverted 6 times in a few minutes because of persistent repeated vandalism by a user who replaced text by silly remarks. Anthony Appleyard 21:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Please re-read WP:3RR and consider changing your vote. The rule (now) explicitly exempts reverts that fix indisputable vandalism. ~leif ☺ HELO 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  28. No. I think the 3RR rule is a very good idea, and the enforcement of it also. However, the 3RR currently supports the theory that the majority are in the right, which I'm sure we know is often not the case. What we need is an improved arbitration process where the arbitrator is a neutral party. I have seen too many cases where the arbitrator making the decision is one of those involved in the dispute itself, which makes a mockery of the neutrality of Wikipedia IMHO. --Rebroad 10:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would like concerns addressed

  1. Ta bu shi da yu 05:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC), please see talk page.
  2. JFW | T@lk 19:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (please see talk entry)
  3. Jmabel | Talk 04:43, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC) please see talk page
  4. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 21:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) Technical limitations: If a user is blocked by multiple admins, it is my understanding that the period of the block may extend for more than 24 hours owing to technical limitations. The second block takes over from the first and so on, so the period of the block would be 24 hours + the time between the first and last blocks. If so, this should probably be spelled out so that new admins are aware of this as well as blocked users.
  5. ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC). I think that some of the points made by those opposing this policy are perfectly valid. I'd hate to see the power abused. Perhaps there needs to be something added in to address possible sysop abuse.
  6. Wolfman 19:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) See Wikipedia_talk:Three_revert_rule my question under "edit or article"? Now that the 3RR appears likely to be enforced as policy, could we maybe get a precise statement of what exactly this policy is supposed to be?
  7. I have issues with the wording, and feel it is important that there be no exception for reverting vandalism, due to the subjectivity of vandalism. Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 09:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement&oldid=1123115543"