![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Is the 24 hours a hard exact limit? If someone reverts three times within 24 hours+5 minutes, then they don't violate the policy? — Zachary talk 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That's why bright line rules suck. Of course, no one actually ever thought to do away with the forerunner to this rule. <very innocent look> -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Bright line rules can be very helpful; if 25 hours are too few, why not just change the rule to 3 reverts in 3 days? TVC 15 ( talk) 03:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
What happens if discussion page content is removed by a registered member who is intent on vandalising my comments by interspersing his own into my text? If I revert, do I breach 3RRs? Should I report him to admin? At first I neatly separated his comments from mine and pasted them below, but he was intent on removing my comments entirely, and replaced them with fairly bad sarcasm.-- mrg3105 mrg3105 11:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Suppose that an edit summary cites a specific concern as justification for a revert. Is addressing that concern a separate edit? For instance, suppose I add a fact, another editor deletes it claiming that the reason for the revert is lack of citation, and I add the fact back in, this time with the requested cite. Does my second edit count as a separate revert? It seems to me that both the letter and the spirit of the rule say "no". Heqwm ( talk) 08:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Is the reinsertion of obviously applicable tags like these after they are repeatedly removed without discussion included in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions of "simple and obvious vandalism?"-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's say an article is in version A (original) and version B (controversial new version). A typical sequence of edits might be:
As we can see from this sequence, the editor supporting the original version is always the one who ends up getting punished by the WP:3RR rule. In fact, for any odd number, the one restoring an article to a balanced and stable version will always end up violating the WP:3RR rule before the editor who pushes a new and highly controversial version; whereas, for any even number, the editor who makes a change will hit the number of reversions before the person who tries to maintain the original version. Why was an odd number chosen for the rule? ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 05:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it seem reasonable to suggest an exception to the 3RR rule where the edit in question relates solely to the correction of poor grammar or incorrect spelling?
For example, assume that a User had already made his or her three reverts or changes and had been intentionally amending the content of an article (ie. changes which would indeed count towards 3RR). The User then makes a fourth change during the 24 hour period but solely to fix spelling or grammatical errors introduced by other editors and which does not seek to perpetuate the direction of the earlier three edits. Should this fall within an exception?
If this were acceptable, I would not intend it to apply in circumstances where a discussion of grammar or spelling itself was the focus of the article in question, such as in English Grammar or English spelling reform; but rather in all other cases where the correction of the spelling or grammar improves the readability of the article without changing its direction. Kind regards-- Calabraxthis (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Does the 3RR apply to the sandbox as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red45aqua ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No I was just wondering If I could pratice many new things with editing In there as much as I want. Red45aqua ( talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
And people laughed when I proclaimed my intent to engage in Sandbox Patrol (see #2) at my RfA. They laughed, I tell you. Well who's laughing now? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ronnotel ( talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if reverting more than three edits made by the same IP address and it's not a clear vandalism will broke this rule. Tasc0 It's a zero! 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Reverting edits made by anonymous users does not make those reverts an "exception" - IP editors are not second-class citizens. If you find an article under assault of inappropriate changes made by IP editors, request semi-protection at WP:RFP. Mango juice talk 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently placed a {{Disputed title|alternate title=Chisinau}} on the Chişinău article. Although "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.", and I did not perform template restores more then 3 times in 24 hours, I was never the less told that I am being disruptive by an administrator in Wikiquette alerts. I thought this was strange, so was wondering if I can have a clarification on this.
Lets say a user vandalises a page. I revert it and warn them (1). They vandalise it again. I revert it and give them warning level (2). They vandalise it a third time. I revert it a third time and give them a level (3) warning. They vandalise it for a fourth time. What next!? Should i not revert it and still give them a level (4) warning? - Thanks, help on this matter would be appreciated. TheProf07 ( talk) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A 3RR issue recently came up on AN/I that isn't addressed by this policy, but probably should be. It got heated there, so I won't go over the particulars and just frame it generically.
User A and User B have rung up three reverts each on a page; it's a content disagreement, not an obvious case of vandalism. User C comes along, decides she likes User A's version, and reverts to it. Bad idea, generally. User A has treated three reverts like an entitlement and to revert to him, validates the behaviour. User B is suddenly going to feel that, though both may have sinned, he is now more sinned against and become angry. There would obviously have to be caveats—particularly, if User B was disrupting long-standing wording without discussion it probably is best to revert. But I think it would be useful to address the general problem. Marskell ( talk) 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There's another possible scenario - of editors deliberately acting in concert to get their way by combining their reverts to overwhelm a small group of opponents. User A disagrees with users B and C over a content issue. In order to get his own way, user A calls in ideological allies in the shape of users D and E, perhaps coordinating with them off-wiki or on a talk page somewhere. A, D and E have, between them, nine reverts. B and C have six reverts between them. A, D and E can overwhelm B and C simply by reverting more times than their opponents can. This isn't a theoretical possibility; I've seen this sort of thing actually happening on highly contested articles. In at least three cases that I can think of, I've seen hard evidence of ideologically allied groups of editors engaging in prior coordination of contentious editing activities (using e-mail, instant messaging or other web forums to coordinate their tactics). Unfortunately we don't seem to be very effective at dealing with gaming tactics of this nature, particularly if they involve established editors rather than an influx of POV-pushing newbies. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about posting a suggestion to modify this policy on the village pump and thought I'd see what any regular editors here thought first.
This policy appears to have a few ways for the system to be gamed so that it can actually be used as a tool in an edit war rather than preventing them. If the idea is to limit edit warring wouldn't it be better to address that instead of concentrating on the number of reversions alone? Don't get me wrong, 3RR is a symptom of edit warring, but by no means the only one. For example sock puppets are often used in an edit war just as much as three or more reverts. Gaps are created in enforcement which helps both trolls and good faith editors who refuse to engage in discussion by essentially giving them the ability to continue, without having to discuss their differences. As long as they don't break one rule too much since they know people on the 3RR board aren't interested in sock puppet problems, so long as they aren't egregious.
In short, why not create an enforcement/noticeboard designed to curb edit warring, with behavior like 3RR, sock puppetry, coi, or whatever is discussed with an eye toward how they relate to possible edit wars. An example post would be something like this though not necessarily in table form of course:
Article name | Editor(s) involved | Evidence | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Widgets | Editor 1, Editor 2, and Editor 3 (E1, E2, and E3) | 3RR by E1: <diff1> <diff2> etc. presented by E2 and E3 COI by E1: <diff> presented by E2 and E3 |
E1 was edit warring and warned |
Anynobody 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree that your ideas could do something to help Mangojuice :) I was thinking of consolidating enforcement of the 3RR and others related to edit warring into its own noticeboard so that people conducting edit wars can't use the separate nature of the 3RR noticeboard/Suspected sock noticeboard/etc. to game the overall system.
Dmcdevit I'm actually aware of the policy, and my point is that we have so many different areas devoted to addressing specific symptoms of edit warring but nothing (noticeboard wise) for it. (Granted there are routes such as RfCs or 3O but these solutions rarely seem to work or are simply ignored in favor of the incident noticeboard. Anynobody 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Except in special circumstances? What special circumstances? Trying to make the article better? Imperial Star Destroyer ( talk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor has twice removed an AFD notice, despite the notice itself stating that "this notice must not be removed". If he continues to remove the notice and I continue to undo his removal of the notice, am I potentially guilty of violating 3RR? I am prepared to report him for a 3RR violation if he continues, but I want to make sure that I myself am not violating 3RR. For now, I am treating his removal as vandalism and my undoing of that vandalism is excepted from the rule. If I am wrong, then I will self-revert my restoring of the notice. Sbowers3 ( talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Does this rule have to be so mathematical? There are already so many exceptions and additional stipulations that the numerical criterion of "3 reverts" effectively doesn't (or at least shouldn't) apply anymore. So what if someone's made three reverts to protect the encyclopedia from unreasonable edits? They shouldn't be blocked for that; they shouldn't even have to worry about the possibility of being blocked. The only criterion to be applied should be reasonableness of behaviour. Since the first shot in an edit war isn't a revert, the rule currently implies that in a simple one-on-one edit war, the party defending the status quo is assumed to be in the wrong (and of course the rule can easily be manipulated/evaded anyway by the use of puppets).
I would judge reasonableness in edit warring largely by willingness to engage in dialog. If one side initiates a talk page discussion, and the other side keeps reverting without engaging sensibly in that discussion, then we have a situation where a block could be considered. Let's replace this arbitrary 3RR with an UEWR (Unreasonable Edit Warring Rule) or something along those lines.-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The 3RR has come up again at the Village Pump - a policy change is being proposed there, whereby a 3RR block would only be possible if preceded by a warning and if the offender persists. This seems only reasonable, since a similar courtesy is extended to vandals under the vandalism policy, and over-zealous edit-warriors can hardly be thought to merit harsher treatment than vandals. (Can they?)
The relevant thread is at WP:VPP#Question about 3RR policy - the proposal in question appears towards the end of that section.-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Reverts to remove clear violations of the biographies of living persons policy, including libellious material and unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material."
Verfiability is only one half of the BLP policy - we must also take into account NPOV - given dedication, a user can write a brilliantly sourced but absolutely negative article about a person, and efforts to fix a violation of a foundation issue aren't given the same protection as removing violations of a (non-negotiable all the same) wiki-by-wiki issue. Sceptre ( talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've very frequently seen this rule used as a defense in unblock requests from people blocked for edit warring: "I didn't make three reverts!" and the like. I've added that section to make it a little more clear that that is, quite frankly, irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Gaming the system to avoid breaking rules is, if anything, more disruptive than simply edit warring, and WP:EW notes that blocks can be made just for edit warring as well. If anyone disagrees with it, I'm open to discussion, but it seems this is more-or-less just a copy of what's posted elsewhere. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In similar situation the Arbitration Committee has started using the word "fairly" rather than "equally" so it is clear that individual circumstances will be taken into consideration for each editor. Both side of a dispute need to be examined and treated fairly based on their individual level of disruptive editing in the current and previous situations. I changed the wording here as well since that is what happens and editors need to understand it. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The rule for the exception to vandalism reverts and BLP reverts were not parallel. I made them parallel with this edit: [2]. I encourage others to improve it, if they can, but the basic idea should be that it should be obvious BLP violations. This clause could be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card otherwise, which is not its intention.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. So.. on this page, an admin wrote that "The WP:3RR does not require the same editor to be reverted, only the same content." An editor (who has been reverting fairly frequently) has been repeatedly recalling this rule, but I can't find any evidence on this page backing that up. Is it actual policy, or is just the opinion of one editor? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I reverted as as written the section about other exceptions is listing what you can't revert to on your user page, and I think that if people want to revert to vandalism on their own page they should be able to. Certainly having sections refernce one annother could lead to unintended consequences if only section is edited but not the other. Narson ( talk) 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The definition of a revert is currently 'undoing the actions of another editor'. Suppose the page history is like this:
How many reverts did Carol make so far? The wording on the 3RR reporting page suggests that #3 is not a revert since there is no prior version that is being reverted to (i.e., Carol made one revert). However, in edit #3, Carol did undo the work of Alice and Bob, which falls under the definition of a revert (i.e. Carol made two reverts). I would appreciate a bit less ambiguity. Han-Kwang ( t) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Should a user who removes something like a sock puppet warning repeatedly from his user page be considered in violation of 3RR? This is the issue with a suspected sock puppet (and all but definite one-shot account) currently pushing an agenda. I'll not name names, but if you check my contribs you'll probably figure out who I mean. -- coldacid ( talk| contrib) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten this to make it shorter and more concise. There is no (intentional) change to what the policy actually says -- Gurch ( talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Is the 24 hours a hard exact limit? If someone reverts three times within 24 hours+5 minutes, then they don't violate the policy? — Zachary talk 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That's why bright line rules suck. Of course, no one actually ever thought to do away with the forerunner to this rule. <very innocent look> -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Bright line rules can be very helpful; if 25 hours are too few, why not just change the rule to 3 reverts in 3 days? TVC 15 ( talk) 03:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
What happens if discussion page content is removed by a registered member who is intent on vandalising my comments by interspersing his own into my text? If I revert, do I breach 3RRs? Should I report him to admin? At first I neatly separated his comments from mine and pasted them below, but he was intent on removing my comments entirely, and replaced them with fairly bad sarcasm.-- mrg3105 mrg3105 11:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Suppose that an edit summary cites a specific concern as justification for a revert. Is addressing that concern a separate edit? For instance, suppose I add a fact, another editor deletes it claiming that the reason for the revert is lack of citation, and I add the fact back in, this time with the requested cite. Does my second edit count as a separate revert? It seems to me that both the letter and the spirit of the rule say "no". Heqwm ( talk) 08:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Is the reinsertion of obviously applicable tags like these after they are repeatedly removed without discussion included in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions of "simple and obvious vandalism?"-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's say an article is in version A (original) and version B (controversial new version). A typical sequence of edits might be:
As we can see from this sequence, the editor supporting the original version is always the one who ends up getting punished by the WP:3RR rule. In fact, for any odd number, the one restoring an article to a balanced and stable version will always end up violating the WP:3RR rule before the editor who pushes a new and highly controversial version; whereas, for any even number, the editor who makes a change will hit the number of reversions before the person who tries to maintain the original version. Why was an odd number chosen for the rule? ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 05:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it seem reasonable to suggest an exception to the 3RR rule where the edit in question relates solely to the correction of poor grammar or incorrect spelling?
For example, assume that a User had already made his or her three reverts or changes and had been intentionally amending the content of an article (ie. changes which would indeed count towards 3RR). The User then makes a fourth change during the 24 hour period but solely to fix spelling or grammatical errors introduced by other editors and which does not seek to perpetuate the direction of the earlier three edits. Should this fall within an exception?
If this were acceptable, I would not intend it to apply in circumstances where a discussion of grammar or spelling itself was the focus of the article in question, such as in English Grammar or English spelling reform; but rather in all other cases where the correction of the spelling or grammar improves the readability of the article without changing its direction. Kind regards-- Calabraxthis (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Does the 3RR apply to the sandbox as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red45aqua ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No I was just wondering If I could pratice many new things with editing In there as much as I want. Red45aqua ( talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
And people laughed when I proclaimed my intent to engage in Sandbox Patrol (see #2) at my RfA. They laughed, I tell you. Well who's laughing now? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ronnotel ( talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if reverting more than three edits made by the same IP address and it's not a clear vandalism will broke this rule. Tasc0 It's a zero! 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Reverting edits made by anonymous users does not make those reverts an "exception" - IP editors are not second-class citizens. If you find an article under assault of inappropriate changes made by IP editors, request semi-protection at WP:RFP. Mango juice talk 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently placed a {{Disputed title|alternate title=Chisinau}} on the Chişinău article. Although "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.", and I did not perform template restores more then 3 times in 24 hours, I was never the less told that I am being disruptive by an administrator in Wikiquette alerts. I thought this was strange, so was wondering if I can have a clarification on this.
Lets say a user vandalises a page. I revert it and warn them (1). They vandalise it again. I revert it and give them warning level (2). They vandalise it a third time. I revert it a third time and give them a level (3) warning. They vandalise it for a fourth time. What next!? Should i not revert it and still give them a level (4) warning? - Thanks, help on this matter would be appreciated. TheProf07 ( talk) 20:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A 3RR issue recently came up on AN/I that isn't addressed by this policy, but probably should be. It got heated there, so I won't go over the particulars and just frame it generically.
User A and User B have rung up three reverts each on a page; it's a content disagreement, not an obvious case of vandalism. User C comes along, decides she likes User A's version, and reverts to it. Bad idea, generally. User A has treated three reverts like an entitlement and to revert to him, validates the behaviour. User B is suddenly going to feel that, though both may have sinned, he is now more sinned against and become angry. There would obviously have to be caveats—particularly, if User B was disrupting long-standing wording without discussion it probably is best to revert. But I think it would be useful to address the general problem. Marskell ( talk) 15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There's another possible scenario - of editors deliberately acting in concert to get their way by combining their reverts to overwhelm a small group of opponents. User A disagrees with users B and C over a content issue. In order to get his own way, user A calls in ideological allies in the shape of users D and E, perhaps coordinating with them off-wiki or on a talk page somewhere. A, D and E have, between them, nine reverts. B and C have six reverts between them. A, D and E can overwhelm B and C simply by reverting more times than their opponents can. This isn't a theoretical possibility; I've seen this sort of thing actually happening on highly contested articles. In at least three cases that I can think of, I've seen hard evidence of ideologically allied groups of editors engaging in prior coordination of contentious editing activities (using e-mail, instant messaging or other web forums to coordinate their tactics). Unfortunately we don't seem to be very effective at dealing with gaming tactics of this nature, particularly if they involve established editors rather than an influx of POV-pushing newbies. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about posting a suggestion to modify this policy on the village pump and thought I'd see what any regular editors here thought first.
This policy appears to have a few ways for the system to be gamed so that it can actually be used as a tool in an edit war rather than preventing them. If the idea is to limit edit warring wouldn't it be better to address that instead of concentrating on the number of reversions alone? Don't get me wrong, 3RR is a symptom of edit warring, but by no means the only one. For example sock puppets are often used in an edit war just as much as three or more reverts. Gaps are created in enforcement which helps both trolls and good faith editors who refuse to engage in discussion by essentially giving them the ability to continue, without having to discuss their differences. As long as they don't break one rule too much since they know people on the 3RR board aren't interested in sock puppet problems, so long as they aren't egregious.
In short, why not create an enforcement/noticeboard designed to curb edit warring, with behavior like 3RR, sock puppetry, coi, or whatever is discussed with an eye toward how they relate to possible edit wars. An example post would be something like this though not necessarily in table form of course:
Article name | Editor(s) involved | Evidence | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Widgets | Editor 1, Editor 2, and Editor 3 (E1, E2, and E3) | 3RR by E1: <diff1> <diff2> etc. presented by E2 and E3 COI by E1: <diff> presented by E2 and E3 |
E1 was edit warring and warned |
Anynobody 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree that your ideas could do something to help Mangojuice :) I was thinking of consolidating enforcement of the 3RR and others related to edit warring into its own noticeboard so that people conducting edit wars can't use the separate nature of the 3RR noticeboard/Suspected sock noticeboard/etc. to game the overall system.
Dmcdevit I'm actually aware of the policy, and my point is that we have so many different areas devoted to addressing specific symptoms of edit warring but nothing (noticeboard wise) for it. (Granted there are routes such as RfCs or 3O but these solutions rarely seem to work or are simply ignored in favor of the incident noticeboard. Anynobody 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Except in special circumstances? What special circumstances? Trying to make the article better? Imperial Star Destroyer ( talk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor has twice removed an AFD notice, despite the notice itself stating that "this notice must not be removed". If he continues to remove the notice and I continue to undo his removal of the notice, am I potentially guilty of violating 3RR? I am prepared to report him for a 3RR violation if he continues, but I want to make sure that I myself am not violating 3RR. For now, I am treating his removal as vandalism and my undoing of that vandalism is excepted from the rule. If I am wrong, then I will self-revert my restoring of the notice. Sbowers3 ( talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Does this rule have to be so mathematical? There are already so many exceptions and additional stipulations that the numerical criterion of "3 reverts" effectively doesn't (or at least shouldn't) apply anymore. So what if someone's made three reverts to protect the encyclopedia from unreasonable edits? They shouldn't be blocked for that; they shouldn't even have to worry about the possibility of being blocked. The only criterion to be applied should be reasonableness of behaviour. Since the first shot in an edit war isn't a revert, the rule currently implies that in a simple one-on-one edit war, the party defending the status quo is assumed to be in the wrong (and of course the rule can easily be manipulated/evaded anyway by the use of puppets).
I would judge reasonableness in edit warring largely by willingness to engage in dialog. If one side initiates a talk page discussion, and the other side keeps reverting without engaging sensibly in that discussion, then we have a situation where a block could be considered. Let's replace this arbitrary 3RR with an UEWR (Unreasonable Edit Warring Rule) or something along those lines.-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The 3RR has come up again at the Village Pump - a policy change is being proposed there, whereby a 3RR block would only be possible if preceded by a warning and if the offender persists. This seems only reasonable, since a similar courtesy is extended to vandals under the vandalism policy, and over-zealous edit-warriors can hardly be thought to merit harsher treatment than vandals. (Can they?)
The relevant thread is at WP:VPP#Question about 3RR policy - the proposal in question appears towards the end of that section.-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Reverts to remove clear violations of the biographies of living persons policy, including libellious material and unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material."
Verfiability is only one half of the BLP policy - we must also take into account NPOV - given dedication, a user can write a brilliantly sourced but absolutely negative article about a person, and efforts to fix a violation of a foundation issue aren't given the same protection as removing violations of a (non-negotiable all the same) wiki-by-wiki issue. Sceptre ( talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've very frequently seen this rule used as a defense in unblock requests from people blocked for edit warring: "I didn't make three reverts!" and the like. I've added that section to make it a little more clear that that is, quite frankly, irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Gaming the system to avoid breaking rules is, if anything, more disruptive than simply edit warring, and WP:EW notes that blocks can be made just for edit warring as well. If anyone disagrees with it, I'm open to discussion, but it seems this is more-or-less just a copy of what's posted elsewhere. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In similar situation the Arbitration Committee has started using the word "fairly" rather than "equally" so it is clear that individual circumstances will be taken into consideration for each editor. Both side of a dispute need to be examined and treated fairly based on their individual level of disruptive editing in the current and previous situations. I changed the wording here as well since that is what happens and editors need to understand it. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The rule for the exception to vandalism reverts and BLP reverts were not parallel. I made them parallel with this edit: [2]. I encourage others to improve it, if they can, but the basic idea should be that it should be obvious BLP violations. This clause could be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card otherwise, which is not its intention.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. So.. on this page, an admin wrote that "The WP:3RR does not require the same editor to be reverted, only the same content." An editor (who has been reverting fairly frequently) has been repeatedly recalling this rule, but I can't find any evidence on this page backing that up. Is it actual policy, or is just the opinion of one editor? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I reverted as as written the section about other exceptions is listing what you can't revert to on your user page, and I think that if people want to revert to vandalism on their own page they should be able to. Certainly having sections refernce one annother could lead to unintended consequences if only section is edited but not the other. Narson ( talk) 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The definition of a revert is currently 'undoing the actions of another editor'. Suppose the page history is like this:
How many reverts did Carol make so far? The wording on the 3RR reporting page suggests that #3 is not a revert since there is no prior version that is being reverted to (i.e., Carol made one revert). However, in edit #3, Carol did undo the work of Alice and Bob, which falls under the definition of a revert (i.e. Carol made two reverts). I would appreciate a bit less ambiguity. Han-Kwang ( t) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Should a user who removes something like a sock puppet warning repeatedly from his user page be considered in violation of 3RR? This is the issue with a suspected sock puppet (and all but definite one-shot account) currently pushing an agenda. I'll not name names, but if you check my contribs you'll probably figure out who I mean. -- coldacid ( talk| contrib) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten this to make it shorter and more concise. There is no (intentional) change to what the policy actually says -- Gurch ( talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)