Wikipedia:Three-revert rule: Difference between revisions
I agree, it seems obvious. Let's see whether we're the only two who find it unnecessary. |
Petunia465 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{policy|WP:3RR|WP:TRR}} |
{{policy|WP:3RR|WP:TRR|WP:3-RR}} |
||
{{nutshell|[[Wikipedia:Edit war|Edit war]]ring is harmful. A contributor who [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] the same page, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours, except in [[#Exceptions|certain circumstances]], may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.}} |
{{nutshell|[[Wikipedia:Edit war|Edit war]]ring is harmful. A contributor who [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] the same page, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours, except in [[#Exceptions|certain circumstances]], may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.}} |
||
Revision as of 03:57, 20 March 2009
 |
 | This page in a nutshell: Edit warring is harmful. A contributor who reverts the same page, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain circumstances, may be blocked from editing. |
- To report a violation, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is:
- Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances.
The rule is a policy designed to prevent edit warring and encourage collaboration.
Users violating the rule may warrant a block from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance. Administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility when doing so. Administrators decide whether to issue a block. Where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should consider all sides.
The template message {{uw-3rr}} may help explain the rule to unaware users involved in edit warring. Report violations of the rule at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
Application of the rule
A "page" is any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. (This differs from the definition of "revert" used elsewhere in the project.)
The rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts count together. The rule applies per page; reverts spread across multiple pages so that an editor does not revert a single page more than three times do not violate the rule (but may indicate disruptive editing).
The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule.
Exceptions
Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not edit warring will not breach the rule. Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly.
Since reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not breach the rule.
The following actions are exceptions to the three-revert rule, and do not count as reverts under the rule's definition. Since edit warring is harmful, these exceptions define narrow situations.
- Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
- Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may find reversion unavoidable before administrators can respond.
- Reverting actions performed by banned users.
- Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
- Reverting the addition of links to content that is clearly illegal, such as child pornography and pirated software.
- Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
- 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.
However, even such actions may be controversial or considered edit warring. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance.
Note that in the case of vandalism, blocking editors who have engaged in vandalism, or protecting the page in question, will often be preferable to reverting. Similarly, blocking or page protection will often be preferable in case of repeated addition of copyrighted material.
Not an entitlement
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.
Avoiding three-revert rule violations
Editors who find themselves on the verge of a three-revert rule violation have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the page's talk page, requesting a third opinion or comment on the article, or one of the many other methods of dispute resolution.
Editors may wish to adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above; see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.
If you break the three-revert rule by mistake, or if another user informs you that you have, reverse your most recent reversion of the page, restoring the version you reverted, even though you may not like that version. Administrators may decide not to block in such cases, unless the incident forms part of more persistent edit warring.
