Forum:Introducing Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule
Relocated from the Development Portal talk page
Due to recent occurrences on the wiki, it has come to me to enquire as to whether we should borrow Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule, which states that An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period (the whole policy in detail is here).
I think, in order to ensure that edit wars do not go on for longer than is deemed appropriate, I suggest that we should introduce this policy to ensure that any users involved in an edit war will be dealt with in a quick and fair manner, such as those involved given a 24-hour block.
So what does everyone think? Do you think this is a good and effective policy to introduce? AsherÉire 'Sup? 20:10, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
I think putting something formally regarding this policy is a good idea, since we already use it as a guideline and enforce it. I'm not sure whether a separate policy would be best, or whether it should be added to general policies, but I support adding it somewhere. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 21:26, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
We already have a set of guidelines on what constitutes as edit warring. An issue I see with something like a "three revert rule" is that if someone is deliberately vandalising an article multiple times and one user is there to patrol, they could probably be seen as breaking the rule even though it was for the good of the wiki. I don't think an arbitrary value of edits and a "24 hour lockout period" would be necessary but I do think that "Guideline" on edit warring would be better off listed as a fully fledged policy, which it logically is. Lost Labyrinth .svg){kind=small}
• (c) • (b) 21:29, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's 3RR does make exceptions for reversion of outright vandalism, so the policy is hardly a black-and-white rule. The 3RR also specifies that administrators can still take action even if the formal demands of the 3RR are not met. This would be applicable if, say, a long-term user engaged in multiple reverts while knowing they're not allowed, or someone performing the 3rd revert just past the 24 hour marker to avoid formally breaking the rule. As with all rules, the actual application of them is meant to be flexible and at administrator discretion. So that said, I still support the adoption of a 3RR here, though I agree that it should be accompanied by/added onto a policy about Edit Warring. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 21:52, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
I can't see a reason for introducing this, as we do already have a general definition of what an edit war is. This policy could be too specific and too restricting as the situation of an edit war changes with each edit war. --Bleeh(talk) (blog) 22:07, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
Like Bleeh, I don't think there's any good reason to implement this policy. I think the guidelines that have already been established are straightforward enough. The main question is if we do decide that we will use the rule, how will we enforce it? There won't be an admin or 'crat around 24/7 to survey the WikiActivity, and like LiR mentioned it is hardly a concrete rule because it doesn't apply to the reversion of vandalism. 
PGR7 (parler - entendre) 00:04, April 9, 2013 (UTC)