Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement

The purpose of this proposal is that the Arbitration Committee members (as a whole) want to reduce the load of 3RR violation cases they see.

Text of the proposal

If you violate the three revert rule, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours.

In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops should treat both sides equally.

(Remember, the three revert rule says don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.)

Note: There are proposed amendments to this proposal on Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule enforcement#Proposed qualifier and Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule enforcement#Proposed modification.

This poll will last for 2 weeks, ending at 03:00 on November 28, 2004 (UTC).

Barring objection, I propose to modify the text to state "In the cases where ~~both multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat ~~both~~ all sides equally." anthony 警告 19:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)~~

~~Yes~~
I am personally endorsing and promoting this proposal, because I think that revert warring has become an absurd drain on us, and it has not worked for it to be a mere guideline of politeness, nor has it proved effective for the ArbCom to consider every single case of this. Violation of the 3RR is widely considered to be a problem in the community, even by those who are the worst violators. Jimbo Wales 03:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales 03:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

→Raul654 03:07, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Martin 03:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (caveat: wikipedia:blocking policy obviously applies, which states Note that block wars, in which a user is repeatedly blocked and unblocked, are extremely harmful. If there is serious disagreement over whether a user should be blocked, err on the side of leaving them unblocked, and consult the arbitration committee for an authoritative ruling on the matter.)

Grun t 🇪🇺 03:09, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:09, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Of course. --Conti|✉ 03:13, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Ambi 03:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rje 03:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mattworld 03:19, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, looked away and missed out on voting 4th. James F. (talk) 03:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Antandrus 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Graham ☺ | Talk 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ClockworkTroll 03:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Danny 03:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) with the addendum that I like Gzornenplatz's addition.

Elian 03:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reene (リニ) 03:26, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Shane King 03:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely. ugen64 03:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
toastedmunchkin 03:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Invalid vote, user has two edits. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:52, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Support, but we must watch to make sure that it is applied stringently. (moved vote from No) --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sillydragon 03:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Also like Gzornenplatz's addition)

Jayjg 03:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke 04:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cyan 04:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 04:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Yes Because he told me too. You know who you are!

[[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 04:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Viriditas 04:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Flockmeal 04:14, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Support strongly. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the Epopt 04:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

honk honk here comes the banmobile silsor 04:20, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

func(talk) 04:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cyrius|✎ 04:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

toot toot here comes the S.S. Edit War Ashiibaka tlk 05:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Definitely! SWAdair | Talk 05:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

YES! Rick K 05:14, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Support Duk 05:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support. Jimbo sums it up the best. •→Iñgólemo ←• 05:56, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Yes. Didn't we already have this vote? Dori | Talk 06:29, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 07:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DanKeshet

Support Strongly Arminius 08:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism could be reverted by anyone, POV-material is a part of edit wars and may not. Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 09:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I support this. For clarity, the above text should mention that multiple reverts are okay when dealing with vandalism. Kosebamse 09:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robin Patterson 09:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) supporting the Arbitrators

Support. No more than 3 rvts to the same page with 24 hours is not too much to ask. Forcing people to wait a while often produces better results, especially if they are overly passionate about the subject. Martin TB 10:52, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Angela . 11:12, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Zero 11:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) with comments: (1) reverts with very trivial changes should count as reverts, (2) the blocking policy should allow sysops to block someone for more than 24 hours if they keep coming back to the same reverts after their blockage ends, (3) don't like Gzornenplatz's addition, but may block should be should block.

Luc "Somethingorother" French 11:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iain 12:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fred Bauder 12:53, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Kaihsu 13:08, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

My strongest support. Rhobite 13:35, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

CheekyMonkey 13:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tannin 13:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Yes, of course there will be unjust bans once in a while. But, seriously, who is going to die if disconnected from the 'pedia for 24 hours? Support.

William M. Connolley 14:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC).

older≠wiser 14:07, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Tuf-Kat 15:00, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Tagishsimon (talk)

15:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

Mozzerati 15:20, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC) but; the editing guides should all be clear that more than one revert a day is a bad idea.

Hephaestos|§ 15:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Charles Matthews 16:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cimon 17:02, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) - (with the hope that it will be applied evenhandedly and above all, as strictly as possible; man the talkpages, please)

Mrwojo 17:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sannse (talk) 17:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 18:01, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) Reverting is often unconstructive, if neccesary someone else can always revert.

Good idea. --Lst27 (talk) 18:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

—No-One Jones ^(m) 18:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OH GOD YES, PLEASE. (Though I'd like the exception for unambiguous vandalism.) - David Gerard 18:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Flowers will sing and children will bloom across Wikipedia if this passes. Bryan 18:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

llywrch 18:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cribcage 18:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, unless the revert is reverting actual obvious vandalism (eg. placing goatse pictures on the page repeatedly *cough plazzle cough*. Oven Fresh 19:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support. 172 20:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I'll refrain from adding to that yes. zoney ♣ talk 20:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support. Andries 21:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael Snow 21:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support. violet/riga (t) 22:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Totally. I completely agree with reducing the strain on anyone who tries to deal with vandalism. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 22:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. The current solution of blocking pages unfairly treats offenders and non-offenders equally and only postpones, but doesn't stop, POV warriors. Gamaliel 22:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. if this applies to 3 reverts of one page(one revert should be enough anyway) also I think 2 users shown to be in collusion who together violate the rule ("hey, I reverted this page twice already, go revert it for me ok, lambchop? sure thing charleyhorse, whatevah you say") -- Pedant
I don't appreciate your implication. Lambchop 02:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You know that you are always the ring leader, Lambchop. Charley Horse just goes along with whatever you say. func(talk) 02:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No
The "may" and the "up to" invites unequal and arbitrary enforcement. I would support a policy that says If you violate the three revert rule, sysops must block you for 24 hours. That means, if a violation is pointed out to a sysop who is obviously present, that sysop could not refuse to block the offender. Gzornenplatz 03:22, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
I haven't read any rule here on wikipedia which starts with "A sysop must..." yet. A sysop is not forced to remove vandalism if it is pointed out to him, but still almost every sysop removes vandalism on sight. Saying "you must" is pretty much impossible to enforce. --Conti|✉ 03:31, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
What is hard to enforce? We could say a sysop who flatly refuses to follow the policy will be desysopped. Gzornenplatz 03:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
The only way to refuse to follow this policy is to block one participant and not the other. Sysops shouldn't considered in violation of the policy if one user demands the blocking of his/her enemy and the sysop refuses. If the situation is legit, there are plenty of other admins to contact. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:42, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
If there's an edit war where both sides violated the 3RR, then one sysop who sympathizes with one side could block only the other side, which would end the edit war and thus no other sysop would take notice, and the one who is blocked obviously couldn't contact any admin. Gzornenplatz 03:48, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
The propsal says: "In the cases where both parties violate the rule, sysops should treat both sides equally". Maybe it should be "sysop have to treat both sides equally" here, because I too think that this is important. --Conti|✉ 03:52, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Changing the wording to "a sysop will" may answer Gzornenplatz' concern without putting any individual sysop under a particular obligation, which would then fall on sysops generally as a group. jguk 14:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sysops do not have duties in particular, only as a whole and overall to the Community at large, and such a sea-change in the direction of policy is terribly major. A minor copy edit to policy it is not. James F. (talk) 03:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's high time they get some, and this is as good a place as any to start. Making sysops accountable to actually do their duty will make adminship less attractive and keeps the wrong kind of people away, i.e. those who just seek power or prestige. I'm sure there would still be enough volunteers. Gzornenplatz 03:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

No, because of the intemperate enforcement I've seen of the Anthony agreement. If any admin could undo it and it would then have to stay undone until there was consensus, that would be a different matter. Jamesday 03:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If there has been intemperate enforcement in the Anthony case, and I don't really agree with that, it has been primarily due to the ambiguity of what it is he's not supposed to do. The nice thing about 3RR is that there is really no ambiguity about it. Gzornenplatz's concern is not compelling to me because with 300+ sysops, only 1 is required to do the right thing, and so it seems quite unlikely that enforcement will be uneven. Is it really going to be impossible to find even 1 sysop who will enforce the rule in a given case? Of all the policies we have, there are very very few which are are simple to evaluate as a violation of 3RR. Jimbo Wales 03:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, but that makes my point. Since it's clear-cut whether or not someone has violated the 3RR, there's no need to allow any subjective sysop judgements. Yet that's what your proposal would do. Sysops would "overlook" violations by people they like, and be quick to block people they don't. Moreover, the "up to" means that they may give short token blocks to people they like and the full 24 hours to those they don't. Gzornenplatz 03:59, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

In the Anthony case I think of things like: an admin blocking him for 24 hours for listing on Votes for Undeletion a page which was speedy deleted as patent nonsense when it was an entirely understandable dictionary definition, after discussion where it turned out that three people thought it was a speedy delete candidate and three didn't. Or blocking for 24 hours for making the same one word comment in a keep vote in VfD that the lister made in their listing. In the case of this policy: blocking everyone who reverts three times is inappropriate, while in some cases, it's a necessary tool. Yet the policy as proposed lets the most aggressive admins overrule the more moderate admins. It (and all policy) should be written so that the moderate voices prevail where there is disagreement. Jamesday 04:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why is it inappropriate to block everyone who violates the rule? When should it be a necessary tool other than in case of vandalism? Gzornenplatz 04:29, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
~~Agree with Gzornenplatz. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)~~ Moving vote to Yes, with caveat. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But you answered the first question with the second. It's sometimes necessary to violate the three revert rule in the case of vandalism (although I'd also add some cases which aren't even really vandalism). And we can't define vandalism tightly enough to make such an exception and still have fair enforcement. But my main concern is that this will give too much power to trolls, especially those with multiple accounts and/or IP addresses. A troll could remove an oppose vote on a popular user from VFA, calling it a personal attack because it says something as innocuous as "I don't trust this user". And that wouldn't even count as vandalism. Just one example off the top of my head, there are countless others. anthony 警告 20:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The three-revert rule is a rule that many people break intentionally with malice aforethought. But it's also a rule that is very easy to break unintentionally, especially by people who are merely trying to limit the damage caused by the people acting in bad faith. The way the proposal is written, it's an invitation for trouble; instead of discouraging the bad actors, it encourages the bad actors to try and goad the good actors into making mistakes for which the bad actors can then demand punishment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am of the firm belief that multiple reverts are silly, but I have three points I'd like to make on this. First, I think this will turn revert wars into a contest of who can push the other into violating - it may actually encourage that behavior. Second, what happens when one edit warrior makes subtle changes during each revert (for example, changing a single word) so that the diffs are not exactly identical? Did they violate 3RR? Third, there is nothing in the policy to handle when a sysop and a non-sysop are the ones edit-warring. The sysop can make the block legally under this rule, but may themselves be a party in the edit war. I think that creates a harmful environment. -- Netoholic @ 04:45, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
Regarding subtle changes, see Talk: page. Jayjg 05:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what I'm supposed to do when somebody adds garbage to an article I care about. All too often, nobody helps me out in reverting and nobody protects an article when I need someone else to do it. Yes, I'm sure they would if I was watching George W. Bush, but I'm not. So I think we shouldn't have a three revert rule, and instead we should block troublemakers and congratulate reasonable contributors who are willing to devote their time to defend articles. In cases where neither side is clearly in the right, the article should simply be protected. Everyking 05:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The problem is that everyone always thinks the other side are the troublemakers. Shane King 05:10, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Just the same, in most cases I see it's pretty clear. Adding blatant POV, removing info without taking account reasonable objections, or plain vandalism. Everyking 05:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree because I think it would get in the way of removing vandalism, and therefore encourage it. For example, I am not an sysop, but I spend a lot of time dealing with vandalism and although I have never had to break the 3RR, others had and I wouldn't want to be blocked for, basically, dealing with vandalism. I think it should stay just as a guideline.--[[User:Gabriel Webber|Gabriel | talk]] 06:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But you don't need to break the rule to deal with vandalism. You can list the page on Vandalism in progress to enlist the help of others. There are always more regular users than there are vandals, so no one user ever needs to break the three revert rule to deal with it. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 08:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is probably true, Theresa. I wonder what your view is, though, of the possibility of an editor with a track record -- I won't name names -- who makes an edit an admin does not like and is reverted. The admin need not even discuss why they chose to revert the edit. Get to three and the admin can wield the power of blocking as a tool to prevent the editor from further edits. I note that in the discussion on this page it is suggested that the admins might be able to use "common sense" in dealing with vandals who cunningly use small textual edits to claim they have not reverted. What's to prevent that "common sense" being stretched a little further? I have this week seen an editor blocked for listing a page for undeletion that was wrongly speedily deleted (and one of the people who voted for keeping it deleted suggesting that it was only a minor indiscretion to ignore the policy) and another editor freely confess to reverting a "vandal" without bothering to read his edit, because other editors had reverted him. Yes, the revert wars have paralysed plenty of good pages in Wikipedia, and there needs to be a means to put an end to them, but power corrupts.Dr Zen 11:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What if the vandalism is being made on VIP itself? What if it's coming from hundreds of different IP addresses? There may be more regular users than there are vandals, but 1) Vandals can do damage quicker than regular users can clean it up and 2) why should 100 regular users be bothered when 2 or 3 can handle things fine? I've proposed one modification which I think will solve a large part of this concern, and that is to exempt reverts made by anonymous users. But even that wouldn't have exempted the actual case where a user was using open proxies to do the vandalism, because this was being done by logged in users. I support the three revert rule as a guideline. But making it a strict rule is just going to encourage trolls to game the system. anthony 警告 20:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tend to sympathise with Gabriel. I think there should be a little extra leeway for users who revert blatant and unambiguous vandalism in good faith. Noone wants to see construtive users banned because they were trying to protect Wikipedia. -- FirstPrinciples 11:06, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Same reasons as ever: A vandal need only make their edit four times. People can create sockpuppets, and in my experience have done so. Bad users can gang up on good. Defining a "revert" is difficult when other changes are made, giving the rule a lack of clear definition as to what is acceptable. Also, to what does it apply? Talk pages (where a troll once repeatedly deleted my comments)? A user's own user pages? What if the edit reverted is blanking? Removing a dispute notice? What about IP addresses? Dynamic IP addresses? Does the same IP block count? Etc. Very Verily 09:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3RR should be enforced for circumstances other than removing vandalism. Vacuum | t c w

Also, does a "self-revert" count as a revert? If you revert your fourth revert "in time" (after an oversight), does that save you, or is it still four reverts, or is it in fact five? Very Verily 09:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is nitpicking. A sysop is a sysop because the community trusts his/her judgement. That means, among other things, that a sysop should use his/her judgement to decide in borderline cases. Hard as it may be to believe for certain users, it's rarely a problem to distinguish between good faith actions (including those that may violate the letter of a rule while adhering to its spirit) and bad faith actions (including those that adhere to the letter of a rule with malicious intent). If you don't trust your fellow users, Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. Kosebamse 12:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Kosebamse, I hope you have noticed, even if an admin correctly distinguishes between a good faith action that violates the letter of a rule, and a bad faith action that adheres to the letter and completely violates the spirit, the proposal as written ties their hands and forces them to punish the good faith action? That's precisely why I oppose this proposal; bad faith actors already find ways to violate the rules with impunity and all this proposal does is hand them further ammunition to make the rules an impediment for the good faith actors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hope it is clear to everybody that the three revert rule does not apply in cases of obvious vandalism; don't know however if there is explicit text that says that. As I mentioned with my "yes" vote above, such text should be included if it is not already. Regarding the bad faith users, I am afraid there is no way to make the policies watertight against maliciousness. I absolutely agree that sysops must be given some freedom to act in the spirit of Wikipedia even if that means violating a policy against somebody who has carefully avoided breaking a rule. Kosebamse 19:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually the three revert rule explicitly does apply to cases of vandalism. "If you find yourself reverting a considerable quantity of edits by the same user, due to vandalism or edits by a banned user, it may be appropriate to block the user or IP address." At the very least I'd like to see an explicit statement that the arbitration committee may deadmin an admin who repeatedly uses this policy against a user acting in good faith. anthony 警告 21:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure that we interpret policies in the same way. It is my understanding that reverting against a vandal more than thrice is not considered a violation of our policies, and that in such cases a block against the vandal is appropriate while a block against a user who reverts the vandal is not appropriate. My argument is and remains that sysops need some liberty to make the best use of their responsibility, and that no degree of policy polishing can replace good judgement. That's why only trusted users are made a sysop. Kosebamse 22:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we interpret this policy differently. As for only trusted users being made sysops... Maybe that's the theory, but there are quite a few sysops who regularly make bad judgements. Maybe they were given sysop privileges before adminship was a big deal, maybe people didn't know enough about them when they became an admin, or maybe people just made the wrong decision, but it's nearly impossible to remove someone's admin powers, so the amount of judgement power we should be giving admins should be limited (and we shouldn't be making statements that they can use their judgement without qualifying it with some means of review for when they invariably make bad judgements. The line between judgement and authority is a very thin one, and "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority" (Wikipedia:Administrators). Also from that page, "The sysops should not have power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users." It seems allowing admins the power to judge which reverts are acceptable and which aren't without any input from the community as a whole is precisely such a forbidden power. anthony 警告 01:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Setting this up allows too much power in the hands of admins who have their own agenda to enforce. In the case of a war between a contributor and an admin it gives the admin a "big stick" with which to enforce his/her viewpoint. Banning the contributor then prevents the contributor from trying to evoke sanctions upon the admin. It is better to have the conflict resolved (once and for all) by arbitration. Before any such rule gets established, we must allow for methods and available procedures for aggrieved contributors to "bring charges" against a renegade admin. This method for contributors to charge admins must be accessible to the contributor while the contributor is banned from making article changes. My recommendations are to: improve arbitration to make it "swift justice", allow challenges to "established law" (the rules) to be initiated by even a lowly contributor, and enhance the "laws" (rules) by basing them on an acceptable moral code of ethics. Without improving the "judicial system" within Wikipedia we will degenerate into the chaos and "survival of the fittest" mentality of anarchy. (Note by Kosebamse: this vote is by User:KeyStroke who did not sign.)

No. "sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." is not so good. If it had said "you will be blocked for 24 hours." it would have been better. Think about revert wars a little. They go like this: Person A inserts content, Person B reverts, Person A reverts, Person B reverts, Person A reverts, Person B reverts. At this point Person B has committed a "Wikipedia crime" even if Person A's content was "Joe is gay". But no sysop will block someone because that person has reverted "Joe is gay" three times. So it becomes a judgement call. Assume Person A's content is something along the lines "Bush is crap" (but better articulated), Person B wont be blocked for reverting that by a pro-Bush sysop. Same thing happens ofcourse if Person A inserts "Kerry is crap" somewhere. So it becomes a judgement call. I don't think sysops in general is capable to do that judgement. Because if they were, the rule could have been "Sysops may block whoever they think deserves to be blocked." Eric B. and Rakim 13:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That strikes me as a very dim view of the admins here. I've seen plenty of occasions where people have fought for neutrality against their own personal views. I don't think this is a standard too high to expect of people; I wouldn't want an admin who isn't capable of such judgement. Remember, admins can already delete articles, which is much more powerful than the ability to block. Shane King 13:47, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Plus, for every pro-Bush sysop you could find one who's pro-Kerry or pro-Nader or non-involved. There's salways someone who is willing to take a stand regardless of view, or who has the right view to block. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 22:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But no sysop will block someone because that person has reverted "Joe is gay" three times. I can think of a few admins who would probably block me for something like this. In fact, I've been blocked before by admins who wouldn't defend their block beyond "the rules say I'm allowed to do this." anthony 警告 01:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. Would only support if modified. As worded the proposal is either too strict or allows too much latitude to sysops. Sysops, although trying their best to exercise good judgment, will use their discretion in different and inconsistent ways. They may be seen to be taking sides by either using or not using discretion to ban. A fourth 'revert' can be done accidentally - especially as it's a 24 hour rule rather than for 3 reverts per day (timed using UTC). Don't bite the newcomers who will be unsure of this rule and assume good faith. Perhaps warn after a fourth revert, ban after a fifth, banning only after a fourth revert if the 3RR is clearly being broken persistently by that user. I fear on a strict interpretation many of us will get bans sooner or later. jguk 13:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiment, but one way to avoid "accidently" reverting four times in a 24-hour period is to limit yourself to one revert per day (as in one revert per sunset). The difference between reverting once a day and three times a day is rarely significant anyway. Once you've been reverted twice you're not likely to stop people from reverting you a third time. anthony 警告 21:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. I think it is a good guideline in spirit, and Jimbo has convinced me to personally follow it as a strict rule (I actually try to limit myself to 1 revert per day), but I think having it as a strict rule allows too much room for abuse. For instance, someone making an unpopular comment on a talk page could easily be censored by even just a single person working from multiple IP addresses or sockpuppet accounts. Sure, that person could try to get help fighting against the anon from multiple other users, but that isn't going to be very easy. Furthermore, if the anon is persistent enough, it'll be impossible to fight against her. And then all it takes is one admin to not like you, and you can be banned. Maybe an exception could be made for reversions of anons. anthony 警告 19:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Surely you mean at most 1 :) Dori | Talk 22:57, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
If you mean when I said "I try to limit myself to 1 revert per day", I certainly mean at most 1 (which is why I said it was a limit). But, I also mean this as a per-article limit. Since making this rule upon myself a few months ago I can only think of one time I've actually broken it. anthony 警告 01:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
~~Would like concerns addressed~~
Ta bu shi da yu 05:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC), please see talk page.

JFW | T@lk 19:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (please see talk entry)