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.

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.)

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

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)

1. Jimbo Wales 03:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. →Raul654 03:07, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
3. 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.)
4. Grunt 🇪🇺 03:09, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
5. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:09, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
6. Of course. --Conti|✉ 03:13, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
7. Ambi 03:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. Rje 03:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
10. Mattworld 03:19, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
11. Whoops, looked away and missed out on voting 4th. James F. (talk) 03:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
12. Antandrus 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
13. Graham ☺ | Talk 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. ClockworkTroll 03:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
15. Danny 03:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) with the addendum that I like Gzornenplatz's addition.
16. Elian 03:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
17. Reene (リニ) 03:26, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
18. Shane King 03:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
19. 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)

20. 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)
21. Sillydragon 03:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Also like Gzornenplatz's addition)
22. Jayjg 03:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
23. Cool Hand Luke 04:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
24. Cyan 04:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
25. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 04:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Yes Because he told me too. You know who you are!
26. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 04:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
27. Viriditas 04:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
28. Flockmeal 04:14, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
29. Support strongly. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
30. the Epopt 04:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
31. honk honk here comes the banmobile silsor 04:20, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
32. Assuming this doesn't include blatent Wikipedia:Vandalism, please correct me if I'm wrong. func(talk) 04:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
33. Cyrius|✎ 04:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
34. toot toot here comes the S.S. Edit War Ashiibaka tlk 05:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
35. Definitely! SWAdair | Talk 05:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
36. YES! RickK 05:14, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
37. Support Duk 05:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
38. Support. Jimbo sums it up the best. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:56, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
39. Yes. Didn't we already have this vote? Dori | Talk 06:29, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
40. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 07:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
41. DanKeshet
42. Support Strongly Arminius 08:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
43. 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)
44. 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)
45. Robin Patterson 09:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) supporting the Arbitrators
46. 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)
47. Angela. 11:12, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
48. 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.
49. Luc "Somethingorother" French 11:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
50. Iain 12:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
51. Fred Bauder 12:53, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
52. Kaihsu 13:08, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
53. My strongest support. Rhobite 13:35, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
54. CheekyMonkey 13:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. 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)
   • 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
   1. 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)
      1. 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)
   2. 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)
7. 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. VeryVerily 09:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
   • 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? VeryVerily 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)
8. 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.)
9. 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)

1. Ta bu shi da yu 05:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC), please see talk page.