Wikinews:Three revert rule

This is an official policy on English Wikinews. It has wide acceptance and is considered a standard for all users to follow. Changes to this page must reflect consensus. If in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut: WN:3RR

Policies and Guidelines

Neutral point of view Content guide Style guide

Ignore all rules

Administrators

For Wikipedians

Accreditation Archive conventions Avoid weasel words Blocking Bots CheckUsers Cite sources Conflict of interest Copyright Dispute resolution Deletion Speedy deletion Don't disrupt Wikinews to illustrate a point Fair use Global permissions Image use Naming conventions Newsworthiness Oversight Original reporting Permission expiry Page protection Reviewing Three reverts Username

Etiquette

This policy in a nutshell:

Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. (This doesn't apply to self-reverts or correcting simple vandalism.)

This policy applies to each person. Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the 3RR may apply to small groups of two or three working in concert to harass another person.

If the edit really needs reverting that much, somebody else with a neutral point of view will probably do it—and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct.

If you like, chat with other Wikinewsies whom you respect, and ask them if they could take a look. If you and the person you've asked to help have both needed to revert three times, then it is probably time to ask for the page to be protected and to start looking into dispute resolution.

Revert-like behavior

Other actions on the wiki are covered by the spirit of the 3RR. Repeat page renaming, or use of administrator privileges (blocking or unblocking, page protecting or unprotecting, page deleting or undeleting) should each be done no more than three times within a twenty-four-hour period.

Reverting and vandalism

If you find yourself reverting a considerable quantity of edits by a banned user or a vandal, it may be appropriate to block the user or IP address. If you are an administrator, you should block the offender in accordance with the blocking policy. Jimbo Wales has said:

The three revert rule is not generally considered applying to reversions of simple vandalism by users who are waiting for a sysop to block the IP, of course. Generally, sysops need not revert a simple vandal even twice, because they should have been blocked already by that time. (However, sometimes sysops will validly choose not to block the IP out of a fear of affecting innocent users, and this can be valid as well.) But in some cases, it can happen that simple vandalism makes it through three reverts; the rule should not be interpreted to mean that such vandalism must be left standing by a user who has already reverted three times. Use this exception cautiously—it is better to just make sure the vandal is blocked when possible. And make sure it's simple vandalism by the usual definition.

This exception does not apply to reversions of well-established users just because you consider their edits to be "vandalism." Simple vandalism is indisputable—don't confuse it with edits which you simply disagree with.

Enforcement

If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, admins may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, admins should treat all sides equally.

Additionally, this rule is enforced by:

• Educating users who may not be aware of good Wikinews practice in the matter.
• Peer pressure and leadership by example.
• Where pages are protected due to revert wars, admins may protect pages on the version disliked by those who have engaged in excessive reverts. This is believed by some to be a recent change to the protection policy. The admin also has the option to protect the current version, thereby maintaining a sense of neutrality.

Violations of the three-revert policy can be brought to the attention of administrators at Wikinews:Admin action alerts page.

Any administrator who blocks a user under this policy should ensure the diffs from the offending edits are listed on WN:ALERT in a timely fashion, if they have not been provided by a third party.