Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
- To report a violation, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
 |
 | This page in a nutshell: Edit warring is harmful. Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing. |
The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring:
- An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.
Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.
The rule applies per editor. The use of multiple accounts is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and reverts by multiple accounts are counted as reverts made by one editor. The rule otherwise applies to all editors individually.
The rule applies per page. For example, if an editor performs three reverts on each of two articles within 24 hours, that editor's six reversions do not constitute a violation of this rule, although it may well indicate that the editor is being disruptive.
The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.
The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. Engaging in dispute resolution or requesting for page protection is often preferred over reverting. Apparent breaches of the rule, including instances of edit warring, may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. As the spirit of the rule is to prevent sterile edit warring, not to punish users who exceed a given number of reverts in a given time, it is at the discretion of the sysop to determine when to block a user for a three-revert rule violation and when not to.
Please note that there are some exceptions to the three-revert rule.
What is a revert?
A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.
An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.
Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule.
Exceptions
Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such 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 violate the rule.
There are other instances where multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy:
- reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. (For other, less obvious forms of vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents);
- reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies;
- reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons);
- reverts to undo actions performed by banned users or currently blocked users evading their block;
- reverts to conform with community consensus on geographic names which fall within the scope of the Gdansk Vote.[2]
- reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere;[3]
Any of these actions may still be controversial; thus, it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule. 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 better than reverting. Similarly, blocking or page protection will often be preferable in the case of repeated addition of copyrighted material.
Enforcement
Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block. In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.
Additionally, the rule is enforced by:
- educating editors who may not be aware of good Wikipedia practice in the matter; and
- peer pressure and leadership by example (see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club).
Editors can be warned about 3RR by using this warning template.
Apparent breaches of the rule may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
Avoiding 3RR violations
Editors who find themselves on the verge of 3RR violations have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the article Talk page, requesting a third opinion or comment on the article, or one of the many other methods of dispute resolution.
I have violated 3RR. What do I do?
If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees.
Notes
- ^ See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute#3RR is not an entitlement.
- ^ See Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE: Enforcement.
- ^ See e.g., WP:NFCC regarding non-free content used outside WP main article space.
