Spoken Wikipedia
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

Archives
August 2004 – September 2005 September 2005 – June 2, 2006

Related talk pages:

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

I do not like this section. It gives admins blanket power to block anyone they want. All they have to do is arbitrarily call something "edit warring" and block users they dislike/disagree with. anyone have plausible checks to this? Otherwise it must be removed.

In practice it is a restating of the dissruption clause. The check is other admins.Geni 02:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In recent months, I have come across several instances of administrators holding different interpretations of 3RR policy. Looking over the history of this page, it's not difficult to understand why: significant modifications have sometimes been made without consensus discussions taking place beforehead. The current version is qualitatively different from that of 1 January 2006, and I am not certain that it would be accepted by all, or even most, administrators.

I would refer editors specifically to this particular entry from March of this year. This may have been intended as clarification of an existing rule; in practice, however, it may have established a contentious interpretation as official policy. I could list other examples.

It may be adviseable for the Wikipedia community to undertake a comprehensive overview of this policy in the near future. Until then, I would suggest that Wikipedians use extreme caution in blocking editors for ambiguous cases involving perceived 3RR violations. It is simply not reasonable to expect every regular contributor to follow the frequent changes to this page. CJCurrie 02:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related matter, I'm genuinely curious where the consensus was established to add Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. to this policy. As long as I've been an administrator, 3RR has applied to reverts of the same material; unrelated reverts were explicitly excluded from the rule. When was this change discussed, and how exactly were people planning to ensure that longstanding administrators knew that there'd been a policy change this significant? Bearcat 02:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That became consensus when that was the way I inforced the rule short after its creation.Geni 11:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we simply eliminate it, and post a notice on WP:AN to the effect we've done so. Thusfar, it's led to very subjective interpretations of who should or should not receive a block (and if it makes you feel any better, Bearcat, Homeontherange is hardly the first user to be blocked under this interpretation.) Using extreme caution is acquiescence to the introduction of a whole new dimension of subjectivity that simply needn't be here, and will likely lead to more wheel-warring (ahem) in the future.

If 3RR is to be tightened - and I'm certainly open to it - it should be to make it the Two-revert rule. Such a change would be immediately comprehensible to all. This one, while well-intended, plainly isn't, and has generated an unacceptable level of confusion on the noticeboard.Timothy Usher 03:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your "dimension of subjectivity" point, I can only respond "not so". The policy does not indicate editors must be blocked for any 3RR violations, let alone for ambigious situations involving recent rule changes. CJCurrie 03:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, editors already can be blocked for one revert, depending on what it is. 3RR is meant to be an "electric fence", not an interpretive judgement call. As in touch it, brrzzzt. Not, maybe brrzzzt.Timothy Usher 03:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what you mean by "brrzzzt". The 3RR policy stipulates that more than three reverts by a single editor to a single page in 24 hours is forbidden. It does not stipulate that the editor in question must be blocked. CJCurrie 03:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another matter:

I've looked over the 3RR page history, and far as I can tell this is the first instance of the phrase "in whole or in part" being added to the policy. I cannot find any prior discussion for this change, which was made less than a year ago.

Did such a discussion occur in a different forum? If so, could someone please direct me to it? CJCurrie 03:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "in whole or in part" is the problem here. 3RR should most certainly apply if there is common text which is being restored or undone, even if it's buried beneath a bunch of other changes. SlimVirgin was on the right track; unfortunately the language about "undoing other editors' work" is hopelessly ambiguous.Timothy Usher 03:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... you may be right. I suppose "in whole or in part" could be read two different ways (actually, that might be the problem). CJCurrie 03:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where the "undoing the actions of another editor" clause was added on August 29 last year, but it was added to clarify what admins were already doing: "Reverting doesn't simply mean taking the previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new ..."

This was intended to include complex, partial reverts, where editors revert war by first reverting one part, then changing tack and reverting another, and mixing and matching to game the system. (I'm not saying this was done in the case in question, because I haven't looked at it: I'm making a general point only.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been standard practice before August last, but I'm not certain it was formally agreed to as policy.

Anyway, I'll reiterate my previous point -- given the level of confusion concerning the *current* 3RR, it may be useful to revisit the issue in a comprehensive matter. I think TU's point about an announcement of policy may be useful as well. CJCurrie 04:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other case is where added material is simply rewritten - e.g. "Hitler was a lifelong Catholic", "The Fascist dictator never renounced the faith of his childhood", "The Führer remained loyal to the Pope of Rome", etc. (although I suppose "The" is present in all three...) Conversely, if other editors are rewriting their passages, continued removal should also count. However, this merits more specific language than "undoing other editors' work".Timothy Usher 04:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CJ, it's been standard practise ever since I became an admin, as I recall. It would make no sense to have a 3RR policy that only included simple reverts of the same material, because it would be too easy to game. All you'd have to do to repeatedly change a section but avoid 3RR, is restore (or delete, depending on what you're trying to achieve) one sentence from it, making a few other edits at the same time; then restore another sentence, also making a few other changes during the same edit, and so on. There would be no end to it if the editor was tricky enough. That's why admins look at the number of times an editor undoes another editor's work on the same article within 24 hours. The point of 3RR is to stop continual reverting of people's work, not only to stop deletion/restoration of exactly the same material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this point, and I'm not opposed to it in principle -- I'm just not certain it was ever formally accepted as policy.

The thing is that policy is what admins are doing in practise. If admins are doing it, and the policy page states it, then it becomes policy by definition. If you want to propose a change, that's fine, of course. Bear in mind too that there were many discussions on AN/3RR during the first few months of its existence, and the policy was moulded by those discussions, and by what was happening in practise as people got used to enforcing it, and seeing what worked and what didn't. It's more of an organic thing than having something formally accepted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Richard Nixon defense: if the President does it, it's legal. Updated for Wikipedia: if an admin does it (especially SlimVirgin), then it's policy. All hail the admins! --

The problem is that the current language (useful though it may be) is considerably different from the one I familiarized myself with when I became an admin. I'm concerned that certain assumptions or interpretations by particular editors may have become "policy" by default, without due process for other views. In any event, I'll also reiterate my other suggestion that admins use discretion in blocking editors for perceived 3RR violations, at least in circumstances where the violation may have been accidental or based on an outdated interpretation of the policy. CJCurrie 04:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think the clarification helps. The spirit of the 3RR has always been "the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars" - sometimes its not the exact text being reverted, but another change elsewhere that continues the conflict. The wording as it is now may help prevent some edit wars by clearly stating that gaming the system isn't going to get you anywhere. Shell ^babelfish 04:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all opposed to "any reverts count" if that's the consensus; what I'm saying is that as long as I've been an administrator it hasn't been what's been communicated to me in 3RR situations. I can't and won't accept blame for not having previously been familiar with unwritten conventions that differ from the actual practice that I've actually seen undertaken in the specific situations I've been personally involved in. Whether it's always been the spirit of the policy or not, it hasn't been what people have told me when I've been involved in discussion or clarification of the policy. It hasn't been what people have done in the situations I've seen.

Basically, I have to agree with CJCurrie that certain assumptions or interpretations by particular editors may have become "policy" by default, without due process for other views (or, for that matter, any attempt to ensure that people were actually all on the same page.) I'm being faulted here for acting precisely as I'd previously been told was correct, and that's simply not acceptable. Bearcat 05:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, let's keep a sense of perspective: this is much bigger than your alleged fault, and even bigger than twelve editting hours of Homeontherange. Not that you don't see this, but just emphasizing, this is about what rules should apply to all editors of Wikipedia. I'm for Homey's block, and agree that it proceeds from a straightforward understanding of current policy (i.e., this page) but opposed to exactly that understanding of policy.

It was no big deal, apparently, to change it in May, and I don't see why it's any bigger a deal to change it it June. Let's keep SlimVirgin's improvements while solving the misundertandings that have been the unintended results thereof. Whosoever does this - maybe me - posts on WP:AN. We've some semblance of consensus on this talk page, and that's all we need.Timothy Usher 06:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not failing to keep things in perspective — "this is about what rules should apply to all editors of Wikipedia" was exactly my point in the first place. There's been a lack of clarity about what rules applied, but certain people are wrongly dismissing that as the individual misunderstandings of individual editors, instead of realizing that there actually needs to be significantly more clarity in how the rules are communicated. Bearcat 08:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I added some of the disputed text, I'll comment. I'm still in favour of the bits I added. Though 2RR sounds good too. There is, still, even with stricter interpreation, too much edit warring. The overriding rule, IMHO, has always been "don't get close to 3RR unless you want to risk trouble"; if you're sailing close to the wind then you need to be very sure of the rules William M. Connolley 10:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to realise that certain users or groups of users may be using 3RR as a form of attack to intimidate or silence editors who oppose their position. I think 3RR should take into account the actions of all users involved in reverting, otherwise a user or group of users could make a number of edits deliberately designed to stir up another editor. Then, if a user reverts more than three of these they will get blocked, but that person or persons can then continue to make aggressive edits. This kind of behaviour goes on all the time and this must be taken into account before blocking the supposed "guilty" party. Arniep 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]