Wiktionary talk:Three-revert rule
- I have never supported, and do not intend to start supporting the three revert rule. It is an artificial solution which only postpones dealing with a problem. I have been very patient in disciplinary issues, and except when it concers obvious vandals use blocking powers very sparingly. Still if someone persists in being a jerk I will have no compunction about using necessary blocks, with or without a three revert rule. I expect no less patience and deciciveness from my fellow admins, and will do my best to support them when they do that. We have done quite well without the 3RR, and expect that will continue. Any rule designed to offset the effects of one problem person is usually not a good rule. I expect people in this community to work together to find solutions to common problems. Eclecticology 11:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved from Wiktionary:Beer parlour
- I tried to instate it here once and imported the Wikipedia page. It was at a time when Ec and I had one of our heated disagreements which are now much rarer (: At the time I believe Ec said we had no need for such a rule here yet and we can always bring something like it in if it ever does become necessary. It would be good to hear from Ec and some other prominent or long-time contributors now. — Hippietrail 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how the rule "postpones dealing with a problem". It aims to stop edit wars like the one at Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. How long are we supposed to continue reverting the page until someone intervenes? The reason the reverts stopped is because both me and Amgine were following 3RR. It’s not fair that we are bound by 3RR (of our own choice) while others are not.
Clearly reverts are not a constructive way to sort out a problem, 3RR forces people to discuss the issue rather then continued reverting as Ncik did. The page was then locked for more then 24 hours, which punishes all us non-admins, with 3RR Ncik could instead have been blocked, leaving the page open to editing by other users.
It’s a good rule, very fair, designed to get people to work toward a solution rather then revert, revert, revert.
Gerard Foley 00:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)- I suppose I should not have protected the page then. Eclecticology sometimes seems very hesitant to check history. So perhaps if I had just reverted it, Ncik would have continued his antics and someone else could have blocked him this time. The last time I blocked him, it was primarily out of edit-conflict frustration. Harsh words were levied at me as it looked inappropriate. So this time around, I didn't bother blocking him (assuming the next admin to come along and see the mess would.) Alas, this did not happen. And his antics have continued anew anyhow, still unchecked. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying you were wrong in what you did Connel, what I am trying to say is, if we had this rule you would have had solid grounds to justify your block against him. As for the last time you blocked him, it was inappropriate as you were in an edit war with him. What happened at résumé for example should not be allowed to happen again. It is not constructive.
It would be nice if people could give their support, or not, to this rule.
Gerard Foley 15:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)- I'm sorry to say that when I made further comments about this yesterday. I apparently failed to save it. My primary complaint with Ncik has been about his refusal to work collaboratively. I do look at the history, and did see that Ncik reverted the page five times in less than three hours. It just happened at that point that when I went to change back I got an edit conflict with Connel since we were there at almost the same time. That's when I protected the page, and warned Ncik. When he was back to his old tricks after the page was unprotected I blocked him for 24 hours, and if he continues refusing to negotiate I plan to double his time out as often as it takes. The simple fact that others had reverted his edits gave me confidence to know that I was not the only one that disagreed with what he was doing.
- Saying that one side was bound by the 3RR and not the other is not accurate. Just because you believe that you are bound, does not mean that you in fact are. To say that protecting a page punishes the innocent is stretching things. What is so urgent that Ncik's edits need to be reversed two minutes after he makes them. The page is about long term policy; if it takes a couple more days to arrive at a stable version we still get there.
- I disagreed with Connel when he first blocked Ncik; I felt he was too impatient, but there was no blame attached. ... and it did send Ncik a message.
- Although Wiktionary has been going for three years there really have been very few cases where 3RR would have been a big factor. Diiscussions and trying to establish a dialogue are much more important. If somebody is being a total jerk the entire community begins to see what is happening and the support for any action is much stronger; the lingering doubts that someone was abusing his sysop power are no longer there. I prefer guidelines to rules; as long as there are hard rules people tend to depend on rules as pat solutions, and cease looking for the collaborative solutions that make a collaborative community what it is. I've spent a lot of time on the Wikipedia mailing list, and the one thing that I try to do here as a result of that participation is try to avoid the agonizing problems that they have there.
- Hippietrail is right in saying that we have had some tough confrontations in the past, but we're both still here. It has never gotten to the stage where blocks were needed, and that's the way that I hope that it goes in other differences. In fact the only grudge that I hold against him is for blowing the opportunity to sit down over a beer; if the opportunity comes up again I may insist that he pay for the first round. :-) Eclecticology 05:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, let me put it this way, will you agree that constant reverting of a page is not helpful?
Will you agree that a user should be blocked if they continue to revert a page after being told to stop and asked to discuss the issue on the talk page?
If the answer is yes to both, then what is wrong with simply writing this down on a page, to remind long term users, and to inform new users?
- Although I have never been involved in an edit war (nor am I likely to take part in one), I don't like the idea of this rule. It seems to me that situations where it might be desirable to revert more than three times are not beyond the realms of possibility. Widsith 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree only to the first of Gerard's two questions. There are times where blocking would be a solution, and other times where it would not. I believe that no more force should be applied than is needed in the circumstances. The way a person is told must br respectful, and show a willingness to find a solution that will allow both sides to maintain face. Saying only, "You must obey this rule or you will be blocked," is not acceptable. Long time users should not need to be informed; new users are informed through friendly discussion instead of threats.
It's important to remember that there are two sides to edit wars. Anything like a three-revert rule must be applied scrupulously to both sides rather than just to one or two individuals. If such a rule were ever to be accepted it should not matter which side is right or wrong on the substantive issue. Simply put the blocking would be applied only after both sides have made a fourth revert and apply for the same period of time for both sides. To prevent relay reverts the person making the fourth revert for each side would be the one blocked even if personally that was his first revert. That might catch innocent people who would whine loudly, but that's the price for having rules. I would still prefer a way of doing things that assumes good faith on both sides. Eclecticology 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Deletion debate edit
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Per the tag {{inactive|This idea was rejected and is not policy on Wiktionary}} and also Help:Reverting says there is no Three-revert rule on Wiktionary. This page gives the opposite impression, and it's not a good use of {{inactive}} as it's not inactive so much as it's wrong. Inactive is for projects that get abandoned but which shouldn't be deleted because they're good projects. This isn't good or a project. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Not helpful in any way. Someone can move it to their userspace if they want to promote it. —Internoob 15:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- When I was a newbie, this was the page from which I have expressly learned that Wiktionary has not three-revert rule, unlike Wikipedia. What I think I would do is replace the content of the page with the following: "Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary has no three-revert rule. The three-revert rule would state that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wiktionary page within 24 hours of their first reversion.", or the like. Back then, I found Wiktionary talk:Three-revert rule enlightening. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- We have WT:WFW now. Maybe it could be expanded with a table of some sort that lists Wikipedia practices and the equivalent Wiktionary practices (or lack thereof)? —CodeCat 17:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. Utter bullshit if you ask me. :p User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 21:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- We have WT:WFW now. Maybe it could be expanded with a table of some sort that lists Wikipedia practices and the equivalent Wiktionary practices (or lack thereof)? —CodeCat 17:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)