Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Clarification - more than 1 revert in a single edit?

• Question 1) Sometimes people revert multiple users or sections all at once with a single edit. Does this count as a single revert or multiple reverts? (If the answer is yes the second question seems answered)

• Question 2) Sometimes users make several reverts right after each other, using several edits. These edits happen only minutes apart and nobody has edited inbetween those reverts except for said user. Does this count as a single revert or multiple reverts?

Cheers, Grey Fox (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how many edits a person removes in a single edit, it is considered a single revert. A revert is a single edit, or consecutive sequence of edits, that undoes the edit(s) of another user. Both of your above examples would be 1 revert. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So, to make things clear, if a user makes 8 edits right after each other, edits which together revert multiple users, it still counts as a single revert? Grey Fox (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as no one edits in between those 8 edits, it would count as one revert. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a lot. Grey Fox (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation of 3rr finally makes sense to me, since I never quite "got" the second, explanatory paragraph. To make this page truly user and newbie friendly, I'd like to propose that that language be incorporated, and some confusing or redudant material removed, so it reads something like:

Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, except in certain circumstances. A revert is any action, or consecutive sequence of actions - including administrative actions - that reverses the edits or other actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A group of consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. In other words, regardless of how many edits a person reverts in a single edit, it is considered a single revert.

Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess I'll have to just do it to get comments :-) I'm also not sure if including "whether or not the edits involve the same material" is redundant to the way I write it above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the original again, I figured out how to address my concerns of this paragraph not making sense by just changing a few words to make it more clear. If I got part of it wrong, please keep any part I got right :-)!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How to win a revert war

There is an interesting essay on this subject. Is that worth attention?Biophys (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very interesting. But we should absolutely not advertise it here, per WP:BEANS. Mangojuice^talk 03:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Old Scope Creep?

Sometimes you find something you've never seen even in old policies! Why does this global policy need to have this extremely specific exemption in it? This appears to be long resolved, and if it came up as a serious issue again it shouldn't be a debate of "IT'S POLICY!" but an RFC issue. I propose removing this line, any opinions? Thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In practice, having this clause in the policy doesn't help much, since figuring out which of two names is the one more conformant to Talk:Gdansk/Vote is usually a subtle matter requiring discussion. (In the one case where I noticed an editor claiming this exemption, it was not on Gdansk itself, but on another Polish town). So having the Gdansk vote be an exemption is nowhere near as simple as having vandalism be an exemption. I would support removing this exemption from policy. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. The exception is very clearly related to the origins of the 3RR itself - the gdansk/dansig controversy. So, given that controversy no longer exists there is no longer a need to link specifically to it. We're big enough to be able to understand the policy on its own merits rather than go back to old debates. Witty Lama 13:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed -- Gurch (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. If anyone decides that this would be a good time to test the Gdanskig compromise, I'm prepared to block for disruptive editing — 3RR or not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Added illegal content exemption

Just a heads up, I figured it was obvious and safe to just add it without talking here, but I added this exception. Since people might technically not post an actual iso to pirated software or child porn, for example, but instead just link to a rapidshare of it or something, I figured it would be good to spell that out here, since it didn't really seem to me to fall under any of the other exceptions. Anyway, if there are any objections, feel free to trout me. Cheers :P --slakr^\ talk / 21:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. "Illegal" in whose juristiction? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hardly seems necessary; that falls under the rubric of "vandalism". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with WP:EDITWAR?

I think now that the noticeboard has been renamed, this policy should be merged into one page, Edit warring. All edit warring is bad, not just when one reverts more than three times, so I'd even go so far as to suggest removing 3RR as a policy completely, and let admins decide if the edit warring is harmful enough to warrant a block, and not be guided by an arbitrary number that can easily be gamed. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is sense and attainable consensus for the merge, but not from removing 3RR as a policy. 3RR is a brightline policy, one of a few, and it still requires discretion. 3RR cannot be gamed if the admin is sensible, because gaming the 3RR restriction is in and of itself, a breach that invites a block. 3RR is a failsafe: a way to say "Under almost any circumstance, THIS is definitely edit warring." It is not, and was never intended to be, a comprehensive definition of what an edit war is.--Tznkai (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I support a merge and, if 3RR is to be kept as an example, then as noted above I suggest making the 3RR definition track the definition of edit warring, i.e. reverting three times "instead of discussion." That would address situations where one side reverts while refusing to discuss (e.g. [1]). In my opinion, discussion is the more principled difference between collaborative editing and revert warring. Numbers can too easily be gamed by a cabal or other means, and besides uneven enforcement of the number has made it less of a bright line anyway (see above).

Also as noted above the time could be extended from the current 1 day to 3 days. It might also help to encourage people encountering this situation to request page protection.TVC 15 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"3RR cannot be gamed if the admin is sensible...": but if admins are sensible, they will be able to take the right action without any need for an arbitrary standard like 3RR (which in any case has many exceptions which require judgement on the admin's part). I agree that we should be thinking about the edit warring question in terms that are more principled than mathematical, and stop kidding ourselves that we can deal with such situations by a numerical algorithm.--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Merged. -- Gurch (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Undone by myself and Jehochman. This needs a lot more discussion and a far better reason than the renaming of the noticeboard. The 3RR continues to be a useful rule to help illustrate objective cases of edit warring. It needs its own page where it can be fully described, and where it doesn't interfere with the purpose of WP:EW, which is to directly and clearly describe what edit warring is. Mangojuice^talk 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I quite disagree. Let's keep it all on one page. Gurch was doing an excellent job, and I see no reason for others to come along and blanket revert the changes in contravention of the very policies the pages are about.--Kotniski (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't understand why you rolled-back a trusted former-admin like a vandal, with no explanation whatsoever. If admins can't tell what is edit warring and what isn't without the help of a number, perhaps they shouldn't be admins. This proposal should be advertised somewhere so more people can comment. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you post at WP:VPP to advertise the debate, if you want more feedback from the community. Let me note, BTW, that Jehochman was the one who reverted Gurch's change at WP:EW; I then undid the redirection of this page and WP:3RR, so that the 3RR would still be described somewhere. Mangojuice^talk 15:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is now taking place at WP:VPP; since it covers a number of policy pages, I suggest continuing in that one venue.--Kotniski (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that discussion will ever produce consensus to merge WP:3RR to WP:EW, since no one is actually discussing it, but just discussing the quantity of policy pages generally. If you think this specific merge is important, and want to attract editors to discuss it, I suggest a new section and a specific highlighting of this discussion. Mangojuice^talk 15:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

All right, the discussion is continuing at WP:VPP#Merge 3RR with EW.--Kotniski (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia official policy vs. Category:Wikipedia global policy and Category:Wikipedia conduct policies

Category:Wikipedia global policy and Category:Wikipedia conduct policies are both themselves categories within Category:Wikipedia official policy; should Wikipedia official policy be removed from Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule? — Robert Greer (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF, since when do we have three different categories for policies. Gurch (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

More!

What if you're making more than three reverts in good faith, like when a page was vandalized 4 times and you have to revert more than 3 times? --98.162.148.46 (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The rule does not apply to reverts of vandalism (though please note that not all edits you view as bad edits are considered vandalism!) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The template message {{uw-3rr}} may help explain ...

Do I understand correctly that administrators look for this warning as a prerequisite to issuing a block? If so, should this introductory sentence be re-written to send the message that the template should (rather than may) be used except in cases of vandalism or prior offenders? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So far no one has said I'm wrong. So, unless someone speaks up soon, I'll make this change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings is quite clear that warning is not required before blocks; this applies to all types of infractions, including 3RR. Mangojuice^talk 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Is fair to say that the "best practice" is to give a warning except in cases of vandalism or repeat offenders? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to imply that an unwarned user should generally be warned instead of blocked even if they go past 3 reverts. I think at that stage, you are way past the point of sanity and a block is usually needed, even without a warning. But ideally, users should always be warned or reminded of the rule before they get to that point. So I think calling it "best practice" is going too far. Mangojuice^talk 06:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How about: While a warning is not required, before reporting a violation consider posting a {{uw-3rr}} template message on the talk page of an editor who may not be aware that edit warring is a prohibited practice. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am about to make this change. Any objections? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Not an entitlement" grammar

I think we should change that sections grammar. From:

The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

To:

The three-revert rule is a measure against edit warring. It does not grant editors to revert 3 times or less on a page in any 24-hour period. Editors who do not violate the rule are still subject to receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring.

Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

Does this sound good?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; the original sounds better to me. Is there something you find problematic about the original? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but rather I am trying to make it better. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I admit I can't see how the new version is better than the old, and in some places seems worse to me (for example, the phrase "It does not grant editors to revert 3 times or less", which I don't think is even grammatical). Can you tell me why you want to make your changes? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So the grammar is better. It would be better as it would sound more serious to someone reading the policy. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, umm, actually, the grammar of the new version looks worse to me, not better. I really don't see anything ungrammatical in the original. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not that there's a problem. It just could use some big improvement. I'll think of another grammar change. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it "could use some big improvement," it reads fine to me. Is there something unclear about it? Mangojuice^talk 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing unclear about it. What I am saying is that the grammar needs to changed in order to make the rule sound stronger and serious. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with that; it already sounds perfectly serious to me. (Not to mention the real thing that demonstrates that we're serious about it is not how it's worded, but how it's enforced.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I agree with Heimstern that the old version is better, and sounds quite serious. The proposed new version does have a grammar problem in at least two places. The phrase 'grant editors to revert' seems to be missing a word or two. The phrase 'are still subject to receive a block' should be fixed as well. Also the new wording 'Editors who do not violate the rule..' is worse than the old version, 'Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule..' The point of that phrase is that disruptive editing can still lead to a block even when the 3RR line is not formally crossed. If you leave out 'Disruptive' then the point is lost. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the old version. Chillum 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

3rr in middle of Arbitration Enforcement complaint?

As I was putting in an arbitration enforcement complaint I noticed the individual had just done a second 3RR and mentioned it without the diffs. Should I just include diffs there or should I bring it here? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Illegal in Florida?

The Exceptions section states that one of the exceptions to 3RR is "Reverting the addition of content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida, such as child pornography and pirated software." Why is Florida singled out here? Why not any other state or country? KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the server are sitting in Florida and therefor Florida law applies. Agathoclea (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to state this in a footnote, as this is not common knowledge and as it stands now appears to be entirely random. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it still true? I though the servers moved to San Francisco sometime last year? --Trovatore (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation by IP-hopping editor

What does one do when one encounters an anonymous IP editor who is engaging in a revert war, has violated 3RR, has been warned, but who has an ISP that repeatedly assigns new IP addresses to the editor?

We have a situation at List of Usenet personalities where a customer of PrairieWave Telecommunications (216.16.0.0-216.16.127.255) is engaging in a revert war. This customer has posted from multiple addresses in that IP range on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Usenet personalities (2nd nomination)‎, signing with the name 'LogicMaster' each time, confirming that it's the same person doing the reverting. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is an option other than that, not much you can do. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting bot false-positives

If a bot makes a false positive (as it has done on the latest edit to Simon Darby), and reverts a non-vandalism edit for being vandalism, it seems reverting the bot's edit would not be an exception to 3RR. How should one go about suggesting this as an addition to the list of exceptions? Darimoma (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If a bot mis-identifies the same edit as vandalism three times in 24 hours, there is something seriously wrong with said bot and it needs to be rewritten. Gurch (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What if it mis-identifies once or twice, and that pushes the reverting user over the 3RR limit? Darimoma (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What reason did the user have for reverting the edit the first time (or two times)? Gurch (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ones which don't fall into the list of exceptions - take your pick. I simply think it's a bad idea to discourage people from reverting bots' false positives just because they've already reverted a couple of times that 24 hours. Darimoma (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think adding that might just be a bit much instruction creep. It seems to me that it should be common sense that you can revert malfunctioning bots if they're truly malfunctioning (but also that the first thing to do is head for ANI and get someone to block said bot). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As I only know of one instance where said occurrence occurred, I think you may be right. I will say, though, that 3RR did stop me from reverting a bot's false positive. I had already reverted that page twice that day, and did not want to put myself in a position where I would not be able to remove unverifiable information from a BLP. However, as this is (as far as I know) an isolated incident, I think you're right. Darimoma (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You could just revert it anyway. People make far too much fuss about rules here. The "ignore all rules" policy was put there for a reason, unfortunately one that's been largely forgotten. Any administrator that blocks you for fixing something is an idiot. Gurch (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be more than idiocy, it would be wrong. 3RR is designed to prevent edit warring and encourage discussion instead; you can't edit war with a malfunctioning bot and you certainly can't discuss with it instead! (OK, you can talk to the bot owner to fix it but you see my point - this falls outside 3RR.) Rd232 ^talk 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge 3RR into Edit War?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It suddenly occurs to me that since 3RR has such a strong connection with Edit warring (WP:Edit war), it could well make sense to merge the two policies (it would be very easy - just make 3RR a section of WP:EW). Put WP:3RR and WP:EW next to each other: is it just me? Or has this been considered and rejected many times before? Rd232 ^talk 02:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR is such a basic part of WP culture that I would hate to see it vanish. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with vanishing - it would still have the shortcuts and name and policy content. It would just place the rule in the context of the problem the rule is trying to prevent. Rd232 ^talk 03:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried this before and for some reason people just don't seem to be able to grasp that concept. I don't know why. Gurch (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, having glanced at the two sites, I see nothing wrong with your idea, as you now explain it. How would you implement it? GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Something like this, I guess. Gurch (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Add my wholehearted support too. I never understood why the previous merger was undone. --Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because there wasn't the requisite discussion, vote, RfC, AN/I thread and arbitration case first, I guess. Gurch (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Lord! Such bureaucracy! GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, people are entitled to disagree, but in this case I don't remember any good arguments being made against the merger. The ones I recall are "this wasn't discussed" (which soon ceased to be true), "3RR is not an editwarring issue" (patently false), "this is how I like it" and "it's always been like this". Arguments of the last two types make no impression on me at all. Can anyone do better this time? --Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just floating a balloon here, but it does seem to fly. In view of what you've said, we really should advertise this elsewhere, starting with WT:EW and maybe on WP:VPP. Could someone do that please? Rd232 ^talk 12:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just putting in my two cents that I'm in support of this, though if it goes through, the section of EW on 3RR should be very prominent (since, for better or for worse, it will probably remain our primary edit-warring block criterion for quite a while, if not for ever and ever amen). I think it fits the basic idea, which has become more and more accepted in the community, that 3RR is a subset of edit warring and is only one situation under which a person can be blocked for edit warring (albeit easily the most common). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The fewer policy pages, the better.   M  14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they should remain separate because the WP:Edit war page is more a "recommended principles/guidance" kind of page, while the WP:3RR is an actual enforceable policy. You count the reverts.. 1, 2, 3, 4, then something is done. So, something like WP:3RR needs to be really spelled out - especially for all those new editors that get hit with it.

Another reason not to merge the two is that they are both over a page long. Also, WP:Edit war has a subsection called 3RR with a link to this article as the main article about 3RR. You would also have to make a redirect page so that WP:3RR would now go to Revert_wars#Three-revert_rule because WP:3RR is heavily used.

--stmrlbs|talk 15:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, with Gurch's skilful merging I don't think the resulting page was excessively long; nor would it particularly matter that 3RR was a section redirect. But your first point is, I think, the wrong way round: it is a common misconception that 3RR is an absolute rule and that other edit warring advice is just empty waffle. Neither is true; you won't automatically get blocked for breaking 3RR, and you won't necessarily not get blocked for editwarring if you avoid breaking 3RR. For me that's another argument in favour of merging; not only does it compact the guidance, but it emphasizes the fact that 3RR isn't such a bright line as some people consider it to be. New editors that get hit with 3RR should be given the fuller picture (explanation of 3RR in the important wider context of editwarring).--Kotniski (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia:Edit war is a "recommended principles/guideline" kind of page, why isn't it marked as a guideline rather than a policy? I'd happily accept that as an alternative to merging the two. Gurch (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You won't necessarily get a ticket for running a stop sign, either. But whether you ran or didn't run a stop sign is a pretty definite measurable event. Like 3RR. It is something definite that anyone can bring to the noticeboard. I've seen enough new editors walk into it (or be set up by a group of more experienced editors to walk into it). I think it needs to be well defined.

To get blocked just for edit-warring is a bit harder to prove, and can depend a lot on the mediators and interpretation of events.

That being said, if I'm the only editor that is against it, then I have no problem with this being tried and seeing what happens. Wikipedia is a group effort, after all.

--stmrlbs|talk 17:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding how this all works. When you get blocked (or whatever) under 3RR you are getting blocked for edit warring. 3RR is just one common metric we use to judge whether edit warring has occurred. Wikipedia:Edit war already says this, so merging would be simple. As it stands, having the full policy page for 3RR is overly bureaucratic and encourages gaming and lawyering. Dominic·t 18:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to make a proper block for non-3RR edit warring is more stressful for the administrator, and gives more opportunity for back-talk from the person blocked and their allies, discussion on ANI etc. The administrator could be criticized for abusing their discretion, or having a vendetta against the person blocked. This seldom occurs for pure 3RR blocks, since they are easy to check. It is worth having a separate policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the need for separate pages. No one is proposing to do away with 3RR blocks. Have you actually read WP:EW, where it explicitly mentioned 3RR? Dominic·t 18:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

At present, WP:Edit warring has a section called 'Three-revert rule' for which WP:Three-revert rule is the main article. When you block somebody, and given them WP:3RR as the reason, it is nice to have a reasonably short document for them to read. How does it improve matters to abolish the short document, so that you can only point them to the long document as the reason for the block? Gurch's merged version from 25 November 2008 is reasonably short, but it omits two sections from WP:3RR which are helpful: 'Not an entitlement' and 'Avoiding three-revert rule violations.' If you want to revisit a merge proposal that seemed to be rejected in November, 2008 I suggest notifying all the participants in the previous discussion to see if you can persuade them. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest giving the violator a section link to the appropriate section, so they only have to read that one section. That's what seems to be done with violations of pretty much every other policy. Gurch (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Stmrlbs: the blocking policy lists many different things you can be blocked for. They don't all have their own policy, because it's possible to explain multiple related concepts on the same page. (Though I admit difficult, with the amount of instruction creep that gets put into things). The edit warring page just needs to say "Edit warring is bad, because of <reasons>. You can be blocked if an administrator decides that what you're doing constitutes edit warring. Doing the following <3RR text> is always considered edit warring, but is not a prerequisite for a block". That's all. And for the length argument, remember that I significantly rewrote both the three-revert rule and edit warring pages to remove the fluff and creep. If you combined the two existing pages in their entirety they still aren't as long as one of the pages was before I did that. Gurch (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see the advantages of having wp:3RR at both places. Having it with WP:Edit war is good for the new wikipedian trying to learn their way around. It is sometimes disconcerting to have to jump around. But, to have it on a separate page is better for people that break the rule, and for administrators, and because this is one of the most "visible" violations, this perspective is also important.

I am not versed in wikipedia software, but in most programming languages, they will usually have a function that can "pull in" a chunk of code,or in this case, text. The code/text that is used multiple places is put in a "library" and called on the pages that need it. Therefore the changes (made to the library version) appear on all the pages that call the text. This way, you could have a 3RR page, separated, that calls in only the 3RR code/text, and also call it into the wp:edit war page.

This would be similar to the template function, but would have to be easy to update (just text).

If Wikipedia doesn't have this facility now, perhaps we, as a group, could request it. That way, everyone would be happy, no matter how they used it.

--stmrlbs|talk 01:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect, the arguments made so far for having two separate pages don't amount to a hill of beans. Having 3RR as a section of WP:EW, with all content and shortcuts preserved, will have absolutely no effect on the policy or its application per se. It will make it clearer how and why 3RR relates to edit warring, particularly for newbies. Policy is far too complex: if we can't agree on such a trivial simplification, what can we agree on (apart fom ad hoc instruction creep, obviously)? Rd232 ^talk 01:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, here's a draft: User:Rd232/EW. Comments? Rd232 ^talk 07:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Further draft

Thanks, Rd. It got me thinking. A number of attempts have been made to merge these two over the years; good arguments have also been made on many occasions why they should not be merged. After some thought, there does seem a reasonable case for merging, but most proposals have concerns. I have tried to draft a merger of EW + 3RR that does cover both, better than the original two policies, and that is short and to the point.

The merged suggestion contains everything of value (I think) within both policies; it is short and concise, and gives much firmer context to both edit warring generally and 3RR within that. It is short and simple enough to let speak for itself. Of possible interest:

1. A section describing what is/what isn't edit warring, which also replaces some lengthy explanations on 3RR
2. Rewritten description for 3RR that makes much clearer the relationship between 3RR and EW, and that 3RR acts as an outer bound but not a permissive limit, for edit warring. This approach should greatly reduce perceived conflict or lawyering potential between the two.
3. A lot of simplification where the originals were over-worded.
4. Short enough to be a good link for 3RR (a common concern in some past suggestions).
5. Easy to follow.

Link to draft

Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I care a great deal either way. As long as it is clear that any change made doesn't change policy (so that if the two texts prove to conflict, the new should be changed to agree with the old). Since this is presumably being done to make it easier for noobs to find the rules, should we ask some of them? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How/where? eg VPP? Rd232 ^talk 22:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Should they be merged? Yes of course, they describe two aspects of the same thing. Which draft is better? Personally I prefer User:FT2/EW2 AndrewRT(Talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Without having analysed the wording in detail, either draft would be fine by me. Is anyone claiming there's any difference of substance between the two?--Kotniski (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest mine has a better structure and better intro. I also find FT2's prose somewhat stiltedly "definitional", versus being more flowing explanatory prose. Rd232 ^talk 14:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've now notified everyone involved in the previous merger discussion [2] and added it to Template:Cent as well. It had previously been announced at WP:VPP on 15 May ([3]). Rd232 ^talk 13:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Should WP:3RR be merged into WP:EDIT WAR? Also there are two competing proposals for the merged page - User:Rd232/EW and User:FT2/EW2. 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have not read all of the discussion, nor have I looked in detail at the two proposals, but from what I've seen I fully support FT2's proposed merger. This is something which has been needed for a long time. I'm not really opposed to Rd232's proposal either, but just from a brief read through I'd prefer the former. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. 3RR is a special case of edit warring. It delineates a bright line that cannot be crossed. Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly support the merge, though since I have not examined both proposals in sufficient detail I have no preference.   M  19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support the merge, as 3RR is an essential part of our policy on edit-warring, not something separate. No particular preference between the two proposed versions.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I oppose the merge. Of the two drafts, I don't like Rd232's draft, I think it would lead to more confusion about the distinction. FT2's draft is good, about as good as I can expect a merged page would be; if this is done, I much prefer that draft. I'm concerned that the list of exceptions to 3RR will be taken as a list of exceptions to edit warring; they serve a very different purpose. Also, I think the point about edit warring being different from 3RR violations gets obscured by spending so much page space on the 3RR. It's also beneficial for the 3RR to be described a little differently on its own page, because that page is a reference point for a lot of people who are blocked under the 3RR and it really helps to have stronger wording. All the subtlety required is boiled down to the phrase "bright line rule" which is very accurate but easy to miss or misunderstand. Mangojuice^talk 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting - sounds like you want to describe 3RR in different ways on two different pages, so we can refer people to the "stronger" version to prevent them finding out about the "weaker" interpretation. Anyway, people shouldn't be coming here after being blocked for 3RR (unless they've had warnings and ignored them, I suppose). They should come here on being warned, and then they shouldn't be given the impression that all they have to do to avoid being blocked for edit-warring is to avoid stepping over this particular bright line. (Not that it is really a bright line, since it has so many muddy exceptions.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to explain. Basically, the 3RR is a bright line rule, which means that its explanation should primarily be written as if it's a hard-and-fast, simplistic rule, with certain specific exceptions. Its relationship to the WP:EW policy is important but secondary to understanding what the bright line rule actually is. I don't think we can really explain the 3RR that way in the context of the page on edit-warring. Before or after the user is blocked, the important thing is that the page on the rule gives a clear rule. Mangojuice^talk 18:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think we can really explain the 3RR that way in the context of the page on edit-warring." Why ever not? As far as I can see both my and FT's proposals are pretty clear in this regard. Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't. I think it's much clearer the way it is. Both proposals fail because they of necessity present the 3RR in the context of how it relates to edit warring, which is a distraction I think will damage understanding and enforcement. The value of the 3RR to the community is its absoluteness: do not go this far or you'll be blocked; it defends admins' judgment because of its simplicity and directness, and it is easy for all users to understand. Edit warring is much more complicated. The 3RR is practically unique on Wikipedia, which has almost no unambiguous rules, and is definitely unique among behavior guidelines. Is it so bad to have a page fully devoted to explaining the rule, with no discussion of the subtleties of when someone is edit warring and when they aren't? WP:NOT#PAPER after all. I'm not saying this wouldn't be an improvement on the WP:EW page, just leave the WP:3RR page and redirect alone. Mangojuice^talk 05:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

the proposals "of necessity present the 3RR in the context of how it relates to edit warring". Yes that's the idea; and I disagree that this is a distraction. Yes, edit warring is slightly more nebulous (I'm not sure it's actually hard to understand...), that's why we have 3RR as a metric. But we absolutely will still have that metric to back up blocks made; but the context of explaining edit warring will make the purpose and meaning of it clearer, and ultimately, hopefully, people will understand both it and edit warring better. Ultimately, both 3RR and the injunction against edit warring are there to encourage discussion. Merging the two pages can only make that clearer. PS WP:NOT#PAPER has no relevance for policy pages; the need to keep policy as simple and clear as possible for newbies in particular does. Rd232 ^talk 10:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the comments above supporting a merger. Putting 3RR in context would help users (who are blocked or receive a warning) and possibly admins. 3RR is not a separate bright-line rule. If it were, it could be enforced by software rather than admins. Instead, 3RR creates a presumption within the context of edit warring. Fewer than three reverts is presumed not to be edit warring, but might be, and so might result in a block. More than three reverts is presumed to be edit warring, but might not be, and so might not result in a block. Ultimately, the decision to block comes down to whether there is an edit war, not the precise number of reverts. Of the proposals so far, I am flexible and suggest considering Gurch's original [4].TVC 15 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that 3RR should not be regarded as a rule above which blocking is inevitable. However convenient it is to have something an admin can fall back on to justify a block, I have seen too many blocks of well intentioned contributors that only lead to further estrangement. If people acknowledge they've gone too far, it's enough. The block is then punishment, not prevention. If what we need to do is prevent a war, it makes no sense either to let it get to the 3RR stage. The proposal that fits my view best is Rd232s. FT2's, in my opinion, is too dogmatic. DGG (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks DGG, and if I may I'd like to offer a follow-up question to those who call 3RR a bright line: would you support transferring its enforcement from admins to software instead? If not, why not?TVC 15 (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Reporting could easily be automated, and most of the exceptions could be as well. The cases where repeated reverts arise due to vandalism reversion are not uncommon, and a few other exceptions may not be easy to detect. For that reason, although automated reporting by bot is sensible, I'd be likely to oppose proposals for software that allowed blocking without case by case human review of the edits and reverts involved. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FT2. That could actually improve both the 3RR policy _and_ enforcement. 3RR would become an automatic report, raising a flag for an admin to determine (1) whether there is an edit war and (2) if so, how to handle each participant. As an added bonus, the software could alert the user in advance of previewing/saving the third revert or related edit, thus automating the warning process and preserving admin attention for situations where the users have already been warned.TVC 15 (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If that were done, the new model would be to warn users that a bot patrols for edit warring, using 3+ reverts in 24 hours as its guideline to report the matter for admin review. There would be 2 sections - situations with 3 reverts, and those with 4+. Users might be warned at 2-3 reverts that it looks like they might be edit warring, and to read the WP:EW page; if they are, and especially if they revert 4+ times in 24 hrs, they are very likely to be blocked. I think that would be a good idea to run by the community. My only question is how easily software can recognize a "revert" in the sense we would. That's a technical question, but the more I think about it, the more complex it seems. For example, it would have to recognize lines re-added or removed in an edit compared to past re-adds or removes, may need to drag up past edits and perform diff calculations for much of the recent changes feed, and might be quite data and computationally intense. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, this is getting so way off base from the section topic that I'd appreciate it if the discussion was moved to a different section. Particularly since the idea may have some merit; even if a bot could only recognise obvious reverts, it could in these situations remind people to engage in discussion, plus bring flashpoints to community attention. Rd232 ^talk 11:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In this discussion, the software idea is simply to address what people perceive as the useful function of a bright line rule. It isn't necessary or helpful here to work out every line of code, and besides if people are trying to evade a software warning then they presumably know its contents already and their evasion is evidence of intentional edit warring.TVC 15 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I support the merger, as it just make sense. I like FT's version the best, as it puts less emphasis on 3RR. Rd's version, in my opinion, takes up too much of the page, making the new page seem all about 3RR. hmwithτ 11:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

  I think that's mostly because FT put headings in the Overview section. I agree that's helpful, but absent that the differences are limited mostly to the intro and the style. Rd232 ^talk 11:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please go right ahead and update it, if it can be improved. This isn't an either/or competition, it's a collaboration. If you think you can fix or improve it, or have any suggestions in the discussion, go for it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you mean I should update my proposal... but I actually tried doing that yesterday (putting headings in the Overview section) and got in a complete mess and gave up. So in a spirit of collaboration :) I've updated my proposal by nicking your Overview section and some other bits. What do you think? Isn't this structure clearer, and the short intro better? Rd232 ^talk 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For sure I meant update it. Make it the best it can get. Off to read it now! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• oppose This would cause more confusion than the current system. The 3RR is a statement about "stop signs" -- a clear violation of which can be seen, and should not be as much a "judgement call" as it sometimes appears. "Edit war" however is more like a "driving at excessive speed" and is, by its nature, a judgement call. If we try installing a bright line on edit war, in order to make it parallel with 3RR, we should make the bright line first. If we do not install a bright line standard on "edit war", I suggest that a mixed policy page will not work. Collect (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

  With respect, that's totally confused. 3RR is the bright line for edit warring (as discussed above). To correct your metaphor: edit warring is driving at unsafe speed; 3RR is the official speed limit. Rd232 ^talk 14:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

...except that 3RR is not in reality a bright line, because compliance with the rule can and does sometimes result in a "3RR" block. You're not the first to think of the speed limit analogy, but admins reject it because, I've been told, ordinary-world rules don't and shouldn't apply on Wikipedia. Describing Collect's argument as "totally confused" may be accurate, but does not solve the problem if admins follow the same (il)logic. In other words, to extend your metaphor, traffic tickets are being written (and upheld) for exceeding the posted speed limit where in fact that did not occur. That was a reason for merging the policies. When observed facts contradict a theory, the theory must be adjusted: while 3RR might sound like a bright line in theory, actual enforcement proves it isn't.TVC 15 (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're over-complicating things. 3RR blocks where 3RR hasn't been breached are just edit warring blocks where the admin has been careless or lazy (in failing to be precise). Rd232 ^talk 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that this merge would eliminate the bright line, just place it in the context of the greater principle that motivates the bright line. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I really like this idea. I think that 3RR is over emphasized, simply because it is easier to understand and enforce. A merge would help put 3RR in context within the much more important edit warring guideline. We'd find a lot less people feeling that they're entitled to three reverts a day. — Jake Wartenberg 23:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. Lower level, harmful edit warring too often skirts the handy, bright line of 3rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, these are distinct concepts. 3RR is a brightline rule, like a speed limit, and removing it gives too much scope for argument of inconsistent treatment. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, misunderstood this. Support Rd232's version. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - i think that by merging it with the edit warring page we can have less emphasis on 3RR... users can and should be blocked for edit warring even if they havent crossed the 'bright line' and should KNOW that this can happen... if they are merged they are more likely to read it all, rather than just the 3RR section... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose merger 3rr is a hard-set community endorsed rule. 3rr is a special electric fence rule that reduces edit-warring more than anything else on the WP pages. It is special and should remain separate. Edit-warring is a mechanism for securing a certain version of content, a mechanism mostly disapproved of but not always. Edit-warring is an open concept, the details of which have never been community endorsed, and per Stifle too much room for inconsistent treatment. Merging 3rr is in any case the first step towards its abolition, blurring the lines so much so that it is easier to block for any content dispute. Such a development will favour more experienced and better connected users over others, and we'll have another wikipedia conduct policy the enforcement of which will depend purely on how many buddies you've got, not on what you're bringing to the pedia and how you're acting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merging the two pages has nothing to do with abolishing the rule; I don't know where that concern sprung from. It's only about clear presentation. --Kotniski (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • As I hinted, it not so much about what people intend by this change, but what might/will happen as a result. Policy pages are highly malleable. In the case of 3RR's existence, the only sure way for it to survive as a policy is for it to have its own page clearly distinguished and independent from others. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
      • "highly malleable" is a fair exaggeration - substantial changes to key policy pages do get scrutinised. And abolishing 3RR would be a very substantial change. In general, I think we have to have a certain amount of trust in ourselves as a community, and shouldn't prevent policy rationalisation to fend off a hypothetical abolition of a rule which is now strongly embedded in the WP culture. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Keep it simple. The rule is "don't edit war". Edit wars don't necessarily need to breach the 3RR: it can be a slow burner, there can be many editors involved, etc. What we want to get out there is that message: don't war. The 3RR is separate. We don't want to confuse people that edit warring mean breaching the 3RR. We don't want to give the impression that you can revert twice and get your mates in to revert after your "free reverts" have run out. Or 3 editors against 1 saying, we didn't breach 3RR so he's the one warring. Edit warring is what we want to emphasise. The 3RR is not edit warring. We don't want to confuse the two. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that sounds like an argument in support of merger, or supporting the software idea discussed above (changing 3RR from an independent rule enforced unevenly by admins into an automated warning not to edit-war).TVC 15 (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's how it sounded to me too. There seems to be some inconsistency among those opposing the merger: the Deacon is opposed because it might underemphasize 3RR; RA seems to be opposed because it might overemphasize it. Personally I don't see that either is true; but putting the two on one page emphasizes the fact that 3RR is a part of the way we deal with edit warring, and not something separate as RA implies.--Kotniski (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments above. Incidentally, there is no party line for opposes here. Everyone makes their own arguments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support the concept. Final implementation could be problematic, but they are both interrelated policies; I see no reason not to condense something that could become a monster. Emphasizing 3RR in the lead would be prudent instead of burying it within the text. Beyond that, best of luck! — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense to put in context. As long as the WP:3RR shortcut works and points to a clear and concise subsection --Cybercobra (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Strongly linked but is useful to have them seperate. RP459 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Useful why? The shortcuts will still work, and go directly to the merged 3RR section. Disembrangler (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I was recently blocked for 3RR on the grounds of reverting a user twice, and then reverting several unhelpful anonymous editors, each a separate incident that went unchallenged. I had no violated the spirit of 3RR, and hopefully this will keep it in perspective: it only applies to edit wars. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  No: the merge, should it occur, won't change any policy William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Also, if you think you were improperly blocked, there are channels for getting your block peer-reviewed; we don't amend policy with the aim of preventing malice or negligence in future administrative actions. ⟳ausa کui ^× 17:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  "hopefully this will keep it in perspective" - i.e. not a change in policy per se, but an improvement in application of it by more closely linking the policy with its aims. Disembrangler (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Exactly, Disembrangler. It's impossible to make this merge - to give 3RR a new context - without changing (the application of) the policy.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support as I am in favor of any tendency to roll back fragmentation in the policy. Consider that the three-revert rule could be summarized in a single line added to the blocking policy. The more parsimonious we make the rules, the easier they are to understand and follow. ⟳ausa کui ^× 17:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conclusion

After reading over the above discussion (which, might I add was carried out rather well) I have determined that there is consensus for the merger and have done so. In doing so I have used FT2's version as it seems the most widley accepted. As always there will be small changes that will need to be made, and I encourage people to carry out non-controversial ones as needed.

Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There's was no consensus here for that. Per BRD, I've reverted. Would've done so sooner if I'd seen it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually kind of opposed to merging 3RR and EW. 3RR is hard security, whilst EW is soft security. Next we'll be merging Up and Down, or tall and short. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the merger weakens a hard rule in favour of a soft one. It's supposed to strengthen admin discretion against the power of the brainless inflexible rule, but no such inflexibility exists even now. Admins already have all the discretion they need. fLike it or not, our famous electric fence rule was agreed by the community in a huge community poll and shouldn't be replaced by a proposal cobbled together and voted on by a few users on a low traffic talk page just because slightly more supporters turned up than opposers. The objections to this weren't addressed, and given the number of opposes I find it hard to see what definition of "consensus" in the English language was being referred to by Tiptoety. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, as a non-neutral party, you can't just undo a close by an outsider. Along those lines, anyone would be able to filibuster using the "no consensus" excuse anytime they disagree with a result. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey. We don't determin freedom to edit articles based on straw polls on talk pages, and an "outsider" sticking close tags on a discussion doesn't constitute a "decision" anyone is expected to follow. Besides, Tiptoety isn't an outsider, having expressed an opinion on the matter before. He indeed was the one who moved WP:AN/3 to WP:EW. I too if I wanted could have refrained from opposing and just closed the discussion as no consensus if we took [what some might call] "opportunistic closes" more seriously that talk contributions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Opportunistic closes"? I see someone has forgotten how to assume good faith of the other side. Anyway, I've mentioned this at ANI, mainly so we can hopefully get some closure on this dispute. I can see a case against this being considered consensus here (consensus is a tricky thing, since after all we're supposed weight arguments based on groundedness in policy, which people are likely to disagree on), so more opinions should help clarify the situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to provoke confrontation, Heimstern. WP:AGF is not a weapon to beat your opponents, and stirring up enmity just makes actual consensus ten times more difficult to achieve. :) Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See, I took your comments as confrontational in assuming opportunistic motives of others. Based on your comments here, I'm going to assume I misinterpreted this and strike my comments. You're also right that continuing this particular discussion is going to make consensus harder to achieve, so I'd support us stopping now and seeing what outside opinions we get. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Many users above have decided it would be tidier or of unexpained benefit to merge these. There are however serious objections to this, some of which have already been raised. It would be a good start for the proponents, instead of discussing how to go about it and ignoring these objections, explain the concrete benefits they believe will be derived in line with our goals of creating and sustaining a high-quality encyclopedia. A clear conversation with this done, matched with repetition or expansion of objections, would be how a decent decision about this would be arrived at. More widespread participation would also be useful. We'll see if this is done, or if [more likely] the more headstrong proponents decide to conduct the argument by reverting. It would be a bit of an irony if this is how these policies were merged. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

From my completely outside view, it looks to me like there is quite a strong consensus to merge the two pages. And while it may have been wrong of Tiptoety to close discussion (I will hold doubt of the claim that he has spoken on this subject before until presented with evidence), it was wrong of you completely to revert to the older versions as an involved participant. I reverted your reversion before I saw that you had indeed brought your concerns to this talk page, so I won't revert a second time, but I would ask that we see even further input and perhaps a larger RFC held before reversion of this version. --Izno (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I have been strongly critical at WP:ANI of DoP's methods, I don't think another revert was a good idea. I would rather see a proper RFC and get this settled unambiguously. I confess I don't like the idea of the merger but I also recognise that consensus above favours it. However, not many people watchlist policy pages and I would like to see a discussion in which the wider community could feel they had had the opportunity to participate. CIreland (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"I would like to see a proper RFC". What was improper about the previous one? Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my error, I didn't notice the RFC heading in the middle that came in half way through. I'm now wondering how I missed this in this RFC list but that's my own problem so sort out. Regardless, I still disapprove of the quick-fire reverting by both sides; kind of makes a mockery of the advice given to editors in more normal disputes. CIreland (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What it makes a mockery of is this page itself and of WP:EW. I'm quite sure that after discussion should come more discussion, instead of a second BRD cycle, because the 2nd cycle does look like an edit war to those who expected that the pages should be more or less done having major changes made to them (coughmecough). When I see a "Oh, you're supposed to be the one to Discuss" in the edit summary (somewhat snarkily, I might add), what else am I to think but "that isn't how things work"...? As I said, I'll not revert again, if someone really must feel the need to hit the revert button, but I think the likelihood is high that someone else outside of the initial discussion will revert also, and then it really is an edit war (if not between two specific people). --Izno (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Further, CIreland, it was a proper RFC, if perhaps not a large or gigantic one. It was advertised in all the right places; notification was placed on both VPP and CENT, as well I suspect the main RFC page. --Izno (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

NB: cf WP:ANI#Merger dispute re:3RR. Disembrangler (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, there's nothing wrong with close tags. I'm just being a bit mean to call on WP:CCC so soon after closure. WP:SILENCE sucks that way.

Note that meatball:SoftSecurity is often more powerful than meatball:HardSecurity, because hard security is brittle. By analogy: Merging 3RR and EW is like trying to merge diamond (hard, brittle) and nanotube wire (flexible, strong). Sure, both are forms of carbon (both policies deal with edit wars), but that doesn't mean they're quite the same thing.

One thing about hard security systems is that they are game-able. How many times have we seen people game 3rr? But the same can not be said for the soft security approach of no edit wars.

I would be quite sad if people would think that the soft and hard security approaches to wikipedia were somehow the same thing. I think that that is the wrong way for a wiki to go. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been saying for years the pages should be merged. EW is supposed to be a hard security policy, and having them separate only leads to the impression that it is not. EW is not a general maxim for editing like WP:AGF; EW defines edit warring and says people who follow that path may be blocked. The issue is not gaming 3rr, it is gaming the edit warring policy, which is too often ignored if there is not a 3rr violation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, I have seen blocks for 3rr that were not edit wars, but rather reverts of unhelpful GF contributions. These policies are meant to do the same thing (stop and prevent edit wars), and this is more important than the hard/soft approach. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I suspected, the more hard-headed of supporters went and reverted and, as I also expected, cried indignation. With the pages set on their preferred version, I'm experienced enough to know that in this position there is no incentive for the proponents actually to discuss it meaningfully, and thus further conversation would be pointless. So I'll just congratulate these admins on their edit-war assisted coup! Hope the irony isn't lost! ;) Don't be surprised if in a few years the 3RR policy isn't even there. It'll certainly be weaker, per comments like "I'm all for scrapping 3RR and blocking anybody who uses the revert button in bad faith" -- which is the kind of ideology that is the real force behind this development. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No the irony is not lost, but sarcasm does not help, either. 3RR will still be there, but I think it was beginning to dominate the concept of edit warrring. An edit war (like consensus!) is not a number (3), but rather a mood of hostility instead of cooperation. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim, who are you referring to when you say "So I'll just congratulate these admins on their edit-war assisted coup!"? I know that I have not edit warred over the content, nor have I asked any one of the two other editors to do so (and only one of those two is an administrator, making me conclude you are talking about me as well). To be frank, the only person who reverted twice was yourself. Tiptoety ^talk 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardheaded? I'm also a supporter? Wot? I don't see my name in that list of names up there in the RFC... D: --Izno (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Can Spam be also treated as an exeption??? There are some very persistent spammers that don't stop adding things such as:

fsdnfjkskghsgjdsjfgd

--Ularevalo98 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not spam, that's simply vandalism. Although it is more likely the same as: Can I really type here? Garion96 (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

easily

The three revert rule can be easily avoided. All you have to do is create another account before your third revert and nobody will know its you. thanks South Bay (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, when a fresh, new account shows up to continue a revert war started by another user, that tends to raise eyebrows and lead to sockpuppet investigations. Just for the record, this is a forbidden use of alternate accounts and would draw even worse consequences than breaking 3RR on one account would. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR userspace exemption

The 3RR userspace exemption currently says

Reverting edits to your own user space, provided that doing so does not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.

I think it might be more accurate to say

Reverting edits to your own user space (as long as you are respecting the Wikipedia:User page guidelines and not restoring material covered by a 3RR content type exemption[footnote]). Footnote: 3RR does not apply to your own userspace, but this does not give you the right to ignore Wikipedia:User page guidelines, and you may be blocked for repeatedly restoring material which violates them. This includes in particular material for which others may claim exemption from 3RR, including copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.

Rd232 ^talk 11:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well since no-one seemed to mind and it was just a clarification, I've been bold and done it. Rd232 ^talk 22:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is clearer? Reverting edits to your own user space within the Wikipedia:User page guidelines, and not violating any copyright or other specific rules concerning content, including those in WP:BLP. As soon as we enumerate specific rules, it will get wikilaywered. I do not particularly like footnotes. Collect (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think that's clearer. The first sentence of the footnote is too long to have in that list (I think) but important clarification. Enumerating the rules (second sentence) is less important, since that's covered by reference to the "3RR content type exemption" in the body. I could live with dropping the footnote entirely, but I'd rather keep it and I'd definitely prefer not to change the body text bit in the way you suggest. Rd232 ^talk 01:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment: applies only to edit wars

In the interest of full disclosure, I was recently blocked for violating 3RR. Not because I had reverted a specific person, or side in an argument, more than three times - I had done that only twice. But I had furthermore reverted non-vandalism but unhelpful anonymous edits. [5][6][7] Each was a separate incident, and the anons left no edit summaries, talk page posts, or attempts to revert me. I propose that such noncontroversial reverts, at least from different anons, should not qualify as a 3RR violation. Failing that, I would like to know why 4 anonymous users are more important than a veteran contributor.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I think it is good to have 3RR as an absolute limit (in the interest of full disclosure, I was the blocking admin). The discussion in the past has generally been that exception creep would become confusing. 4 anonymous users are not more important than a veteran contributor, in my opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But you're missing my point: Firstly, although I am a little bitter over the incident, I am not after revenge (although perhaps closure) but rather the improvement of the policy for future incidents. My point was that an editor could hypothetically revert four separate anons without engaging in an edit war (granted, I wasn't quite as blameless). Now ideally there would be more than one person watching the article, but does 3RR compel that editor to let an unhelpful edit stand because of previous, unrelated edits by other users? I think we can fairly clearly exempt reverts of IPs except where they resemble edit wars (for example).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(a) I can't see what workable change could be made to prevent this. (b) arguing about the relative merits of different editors is problematic. (c) it makes no sense to apply 3RR so strictly that one competent editor can't undo a range of unhelpful-but-well-intentioned contributions from multiple inexperienced editors in a manner which doesn't resemble edit warring. (d) any proposed change should focus on the nub of the matter, which is that 3RR in spirit and common sense applies to the same issue on the same page, not unrelated ones. The letter of the rule says otherwise, but AFAIK this is widely ignored in favour of focussing on what the rule is trying to achieve, which is to prevent edit warring. IMO the reason the rule is written so strictly is to prevent gaming the system / arguing about what constitutes "related issues", etc. Common sense in considering the spirit of the rule and the spirit of WP:IAR (i.e. what's best for the encyclopedia) allows admins to do that in a way that a policy rule doesn't. I'm not sure that any feasible change to the policy rule can improve on that, but I'm open to suggestions. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the following can be added to Exceptions, Exceptions by content type: "Reverting unrelated noncontroversial edits. Edits are not related if they are made by different users to different parts of the article. Edits are noncontroversial if their author does not defend them with an edit summary, does not revert to a prior version, does not reinstate them after being reverted, and does not defend them on a talk page (article or user). Edits must be both unrelated and noncontroversial." Most anons do not leave edit summaries; most edit war-ers do. The proposed category of edits would not themselves be reverts (further eliminating the potential for abuse), and so reverting such edits would not count (unless the revert was reverted, in which case both users have 1 revert). I have italicized "and" to highlight that, to be exempt, an edit must comply with all of the requirements listed. Is this actionable?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit complexifying. How about clarifying somehow that since 3RR is intended to limit edit warring, reverting edits unrelated to a particular dispute should be considered separately (effectively, a separate 3RR count for each dispute on a page, rather than on each page). That might go into the bright line as "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts relating to a single issue on a single page within a 24-hour period", but it's probably better left for the text. Disembrangler (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the events described above support the earlier discussion of converting 3RR from a standalone policy to an automated warning not to edit-war. Crossing the 3RR line would invite admin attention, including possibly blocking editor(s) found to be culpable. Evading the 3RR line, e.g. by sock puppets or other means, would be evidence of intentional misconduct justifying a longer block. Identifying an edit war, and more importantly identifying who is at fault, requires human judgment; counting to three does not require judgment, but does not answer the essential questions about edit warring.TVC 15 (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm following you... If a hypothetical user can violate 3RR without edit warring by reverting four anons, and plenty of people edit war with fewer than four reverts, 3RR doesn't do a very good job, right? Unfortunately, entrusting these distinctions to common sense does not always work. I agree that this depends, to an extent, on the result of the above poll. My goal, though, is to be pragmatic: to create a reasonable exemption that cannot be abused in edit wars.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, the software idea is simply to automate what people consider a "bright line" rule, but make it a warning and a flag, reserving enforcement decisions for case-by-case judgment of edit warring.TVC 15 (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The software idea will go nowhere. Try reviewing, say, the current set of reports and see how many of them could have been handled by a 4-identical-reverts bot. My guess is that the answer is likely zero William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The software idea has merit but is tangential to this discussion and besides William M. Connolley's objection above does not include any examples. However, William M. Connolley's misunderstanding is easy to answer without venturing too far afield. First, it's 3RR not 4RR. Second, before saving or previewing a revert, the software would simply check how many times you've clicked revert within the last 24 hours. If it's more than once, you'd see the automatic warning. If you save the revert anyway, it would raise a flag that you've crossed the 3RR line, which might indicate the presence of an edit war meriting admin attention. Software can't solve everything, but neither can 3RR. As with the merger proposals, the goal is simply to provide better information sooner, reducing arbitrary (or apparently arbitrary) and inconsistent enforcement of what is thought to be a bright line rule.TVC 15 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive and redirect?

Because of the forced merger above into WP:EW, this page is no longer in the wiki-link world. We should probably then, when all ongoing discussions are resolved, archive this page, and redirect it to Wikipedia talk:Edit war. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People ... "Also See" section

Hello, Once again there are some members who try to change the page without any discussion and/or consent. Recently User:TheTriZ has decided to add his own pages and move pages as he pleases in the "Also See" section. I have so far undid his edits, and asked him to discuss his changes and gain consensus. I have started a section in the discussion board pertaining to the 'also see' section, but he continued many times to change things as he pleases. I continued to undo his changes and asked him again and again to discuss any changes he wanted to make. This has resulted to an edit war, where he refuses to discuss the changes which he wants to make to the section. I do not want to be blocked for edit warring, so I have come here to ask for your assistance. Feel free to check out the history of the page and the discussion board. I want you to get involved in this debate and get involved to bring out a resolution. Thank-you. Malik Danno (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Malik Danno (talk · contribs) has already broken the 3RR, I also already warned him about the rule. I've also many times suggested him to read Wikipedia policies and get involved in other subjects or just watch and learn what Wikipedia is about. Unfortunatetly Malik has ignored this. He believes just because he has created a discussion entry, that motivates him to have duplicates of the same things in the "See also" section. He also fails to see that I can remove these duplicates and return things to order without telling him. If you have read the talkpage, you'll also see that he is blindly biased and convinced of pushing the page according to his own personal point of views. The TriZ (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If I have broken the 3RR then so have you. I asked these admins to help because users such as The TriZ are uncompromising and unwilling to accept any other point but their own. I ask anyone to read the discussion boards, and Archive 8 as well, and the history section and see the contributions I have made to the page pertaining to Religion, Festivals and Music. I have not done any changes unless I have first discussed them. I ask anyone here to see this for themselves. All I want, and have asked for is for discussion and consensus to be reached before changes are made. Sure a change can be made without consent first, but if there is 1 person who will undo the changes then it is the responsibility of both parties to discuss the changes. I have done this ... just check archive 8 and 'Music II' under the discussion section. User: The TriZ and User: ArameanSyriac have taken the liberty of manipulating the page to fit their own standards and ignoring all others. I ask anyone here to come up with their own conclusions and mediate the situation. Thank-you. Malik Danno (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. after I have been warned I have not edited anything. Malik Danno (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you had already broken the rule then. I just haven't reported you. And no I haven't broken the rule. But then you must also understand the purpose of the rule, which is to prohibit edit-wars. The TriZ (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Warnings

I have just changed the text of the must-warn-editors-in-good-standing bit [8] because it appears unworkable to me. As read, it says that the blocking editor must warn the editor, no matter how many recent previous warnings have been issued to the warree. That doesn't sound reasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's more like that we need to be sure the user has been warned at some point (or is in some other way aware of the relevant policies). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked this a bit. If I stop by someone's page and say, "I think your edits may be problematic," and then someone else comes along and blocks under the theory that I warned them, that would be ungood. The warning must be clear. IronDuke 23:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if this is worth including, but I think warnings of this sort should pretty much always include a link to this project page and preferably also WP:3RR. The templated ones do this; it seems to me that if you don't use one (and sometimes you shouldn't!), your warning should do the same. Take what you will from that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and more specificity is better. After all, an anon can template an arbcom member with a generic warning that blocks can result from their edits. Could that arb then be blocked by an admin because "they were warned?" Love to see someone try that and see how long they kept their bit. No... it must be clear that the editor in question is in imminent danger of being blocked, very much preferably by the person giving the initial warning. IronDuke 23:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Usually the admins know about edit wars when the the two sides engage in reverting. If only one side revert and the other restrain, the first side will win, and that's not fair. Rules about reverting should be more specific and the admins should consider many factors and not apply the 3RR rule on both sides blindly.

1. Wikipedia should recommend a single or a few changes per edit for the changes that likely to be challenged.
2. Wikipedia should discourage reverting multiple edits over long period of time. Currently reverting one edit is no different than reverting 50 edits.
3. There should be a clear path for the process: if user A made an edit then user B reverted, user A should write in the talk page without reverting , If B didn't respond in the talk page then A can revert, If B responded then they should continue to disscuss without reverting, if no agreement between them they should follow the process of dispute resolution , if anybody of them didn't follow the process then the other part can revert.
4. Exceptions should be considered about specific disputes if the burden of prove rests on one party
5. rules about the burden of prove should be clear
6. We should find the most cited reasons for reverting and make a specific rules for each case. One of the cited reasons for example is "this material constitute a fringe theory". We can say the burden of prove rests on you , so you should ask at the relevent noticeboard before reverting. Dy yol (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

These aren't bad ideas, but I think you'll meet some resistance in terms of WP:CREEP. People tend not to like too much formalizing of who can edit what when and how. Unwiki and all that. IronDuke 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Edit wars is a big problem and something has to be done about it. Currently, many use wikipedia politics to win these wars because there is no clear policies. These rules will only apply after the first revert.Dy yol (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem

I've just spotted a problem. What if a user makes an edit, and then a second user reverts it. Once the first user reverts back, then the second user reverts. Assuming the first user reverts, gets reverted, and reverts again, the second user has to break the three revert rule to get the page back to the version that the general consensus of opinion supports. What would happen in that situation?--Tmwps (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If indeed the general consensus supports the original version, the second user won't have to be the one to revert it; others will be able to do so. If, conversely, the second user is the only one reverting, there probably isn't any consensus against the new edit, at least not yet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Can articles with Edit wars be deleted?

If a article cotains edit war, can it deleted? Junk Police (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an article because there's an edit war is definitely throwing the baby out with the bathwater in most cases. Mind you, some articles that are common edit warring grounds are probably POV forks that should indeed be deleted, but edit wars are certainly not a cause for deletion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

Not sure the image at the top of the page is a useful example. If it is in fact an edit war and not simply vandalism, it was handled completely wrong -- by using semi-protection to shut out one side of the dispute but not the other. This is a bad example to set. It was probably just persistent vandalism, though, which makes it an even worse example. Gurch (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Page move war

I have created that page and am requesting that it be expanded. If anybody believes that it should be nominated for deletion, please userfy it to User:IRP/ArticlesForCreation/Wikipedia:Page move war instead. -- IRP ☎ 00:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Satirical Edit War

The article states that a user who satirically employs an edit war will "quickly" be blocked even if they come nowhere near violating the three edit rule. Does "nowhere near" refer to the 24 hour part of the rule or the three edit part? How "quickly" can someone be blocked if they come nowhere near violating a rule that exists on a 24 hour time scale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N88819 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Robot wars

With the conflict that User:Haukurth has had with bot User:Cydebot (operated by User:William Allen Simpson, cf. User_talk:Haukurth#4RR, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country) in mind, does the 3RR rule apply to reverts that users make of bots? It seems insane to me. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bots shouldn't be editwarring with people. Could you provide links to diffs in such an editwar? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at history of Sigurrós and history of Guðrún. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Cydebot has never been operated by me; it is a bot that automatically does WP:CFD, and in this case was closed as delete (by somebody else entirely). Haukurth (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) was edit warring with the bot (and me), because he disagreed with the CfD result (since upheld at Review). I thought I was being nice to him, just giving him a quick warning at 4RR, since I'm not a big believer in biting possible newcomers, and I didn't check his status. Had I known that he was an experienced administrator, I'd have taken it directly to WP:ANI.... (Sorry, I didn't see this sooner, as I didn't have this page watched.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Status quo

WP:STATUSQUO states that in case of content dispute, original version should be kept until dispute is resolved. Is reverting to status quo for the duration of discussion an exception for 3RR? Kotiwalo (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO is part of an essay, rather than a policy or guideline, so at the moment probably not.--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But if an issue is being settled by discussion, good faith reverting to the original until new consensus is reached can hardly be considered edit warring? Kotiwalo (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, sometimes both sides claim that "their" version represents the status quo, and it isn't always obvious who's right.--Kotniski (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sad but true. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked up a discussion about the paragraph here. I think Smallvillefanatic is saying some sensible things there.

The objective of wikipedia is to *edit* articles. The instinct to revert-revert-revert is exactly the wrong way around, and is anathema to Getting Things Done. If you "revert to status quo", neither the short flowchart at WP:CONSENSUS (the optimal path), nor the long flowchart currently only shown at WP:BRD (for resolving issues) will work.

Look at it this way: Every revert is an edit. The same rules apply as for edits. You must ensure you have consensus before you make the edit, etc etc etc.

• By reverting, you make an edit that is guaranteed to not have consensus.(the current version may not have your approval, but the previous version did not have the other person's approval)
• Therefore, you should only revert if the previous edit was particularly egregious.
• By reverting you therefore suggest that the previous edit was egregious.
• You have started out your attempts to gain consensus by offending the other party, congratulations! :-P

You should only revert if there is no other way to salvage the situation (you can't edit to incorporate the other person's changes, you can't find sources yourself, etc) , and you are in a hurry to resolve things (What's the hurry? You think the wiki will melt by tomorrow?). To be fair: if you understand how the wiki works, you can sometimes decide to revert as part of some kind of ploy or stratagem to expedite consensus.

The most aggravating kind of revert is not the revert with no edit summary (although that's a big no-no), but rather the revert with a vacuous edit summary like "revert to status quo" or "get consensus first". Such a revert demonstrates a lack of understanding of how consensus works. (Even so, several current admins still have this revert style, which makes me wonder how they managed to pass RFA, but that's a story for another day)

What you SHOULD do when reverting, is treat the revert as the controversial edit as it is. Write a short clear summary, and add clear explanation why you don't agree with the previous editor's position on the talk page. You can then proceed to discuss, as per BRD.

Just to be sure we're putting this through to you. If you do revert, you are automatically in the "long cycle". And that's a CYCLE.

• it is not edit-revert-edit-revert-edit-revert (thank goodness for 3RR)
• nor is it revert-revert-revert (Definitely not)
• nor is it edit-revert-discuss-discuss-discuss-discuss-...(we really need a 3-discussion-rule ;-) It'd be something like "You must make 1 edit for every three posts to the talk page")

• it is edit-revert-discuss-edit-revert-discuss....

and you keep going that way until you finally figure out how to get back to

• edit-edit-edit... (the wiki way)

Does that make sense so far?

As to your question? I think a "good faith revert to the status quo" is an oxymoron. If I catch you doing it once, I will Explain Politely as to how and why that is the case, as per WP:AGF. The second time? I will Eat Your Guts For Lunch. (With extra helpings of salad and fries, yum!) }:-D --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis and wording

I've reworked some recent edits about 3RR, but felt obligated to revert some of the changes. The problem is the wording slightly emphasizes a sense of "upper limit" or "parallel standard" or lost nuance, and in the case of 3RR those are crucial and were the subject of considerable review and concern in the recent update to the policy (see talk page archive).

I've tried to incorporate those edits that were good, and some were, but a part of the wording just doesn't work for me. It seemed to weaken the concept of "edit warring policy, of which 3RR is a point of action if none is already taken" rather than the less desirable "edit warring policy, of which 3RR is the main indicator". We want the policy to very firmly feel like the first, not the second. Wordings such as "you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't breach 3RR" may accidentally imply the opposite.

This is how EW relates to 3RR, and the sense WP:EW tries to convey:

1. You can be blocked for edit warring, period. 2. Everything about 3RR is completely secondary to that, and merely expands on it for convenience."

In other words, the "feel" of the policy is ideally that admins act on edit warring primarily, and that 3RR is merely a point within that where admin patience runs out if it hasn't been addressed already, or users can ask for a forceful cessation if they haven't already.

diff diff

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... "even if" I don't think implies the opposite generally ought to be true, but that it is widely believed to be true. I understand that you are trying to "dispel" this of course, but the effect here will be neutral. And it is in practice true that editors can do a lot of non-3RR edit-warring but that they rarely get away with 3rr, as the rule is well known, lacks the conceptual malleability of the EW policy that recently annexed it, and opponents follow their incentive to report. This page is really to keep the policy as a realistic reflection of practice rather than an ideologized prescriptive essay. Wikipedia may be like a panopticon, but it is so large that administrators can only look at a small number of cells at one moment, and everyone knows this; so the page should be a bit more realistic if it is to reflect practice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be cruelly ironic to edit war on this of all pages, so I figured to bring it here for discussion :-) I'm done with that block of editing, do you want to have a go and see what you can improve, what you like, what you don't, and what you can't live with? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost all the editing [by me] was copy-editing and minor wordage tweaks [which i didn't envisage would meet opposition], so I don't see any edit-war emerging. :)I don't really have a problem with much that's been added, and the he point you raised above isn't major. But as a semi-tangential point I don't particularly like the balance in this page between ideology and realism. With the page's current ideological slant, we raise admin zeal on the matter. In doing so we risk terrorising good editors into avoiding dealing with problematic content when there are experienced problematic content-contributors behind them. The page's vision of the editor is too simplified, and unrealistic. A large proportion of edit-warring takes place when one [or each] party desires page content to be a certain way, and strategises on how to achieve this desire. They do so based on their knowledge of wikipedia culture, its practices, editorial values and demographics. So, for example, seeking a third opinion is often in reality seeking the opinion of those known to be favourable [but credible enough to be presented as if they weren't], and those that do so most successfully are able to exploit EW in order to discredit and punish their opponents, and thereby gain dominance in the dispute. We rely that such things will be resolved by outside intervention, but certain areas are too specialised and good editors in such areas are unable to draw on this community support. And so on... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A good point. "Hmm". So okay, we've said edit warring isn't okay. However we haven't in fact provided a realistic description of practical measures (more just an overly-idealized and slightly unhelpful one), because in reality many of these wars are specialized or messy, or the abuse is more significant (gaming the dispute resolution system etc).

Is that roughly your meaning? If so, further thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, yep. I always have further thoughts of course ... on what in particular? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible flow edit

Is this wording any better? (Minor flow edit)

• EXISTING
  "A reverting editor is intentionally reversing changes by another editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), and throwing away their edit rather than improving upon it or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore..."

• PROPOSED
  "A reverting editor is throwing away changes by another editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore..."

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)