Wikipedia:Three-revert ruleThis page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page. Shortcuts:
WP:TRR This page in a nutshell: Edit warringis harmful. Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blockedfrom editing. General help General issues • Site directory • Image & media copyright • Userpage help • New user help • Community assistanceReport abuse Vandalism • Spam • Edit warring • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sock puppets • Copyright violations • Long term abuse • ISP reportingRequest assistance Editor assistance • Page protection • Checkuser • Oversight • Arbitration • Mediation: Formal/ Informal • Requests for comment • Wikiquette alertsNoticeboards Administrators' • Incidents • ArbCom enforcement • Conflict of interest • Biographies • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources
- To report a violation, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
No legal threats
No personal attacks
Ownership of articles
- An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.
Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.
The rule applies per editor. The use of multiple accounts is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and reverts by multiple accounts are counted as reverts made by one editor. The rule otherwise applies to all editors individually.
The rule applies per page. For example, if an editor performs two reverts on each of three articles within 24 hours, that editor's six reversions do not constitute a violation of this rule, although it may well indicate that the editor is being disruptive.
The rule is breached when an editor makes more than three reverts.
The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.
The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others. If an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. Resolving a dispute or requesting page protection is often preferable to reversion. Apparent breaches of the rule, including instances of edit warring, may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. As the spirit of the rule is to prevent sterile edit warring, not to punish users who exceed a given number of reverts in a given time, it is at the discretion of the administrator to determine whether and when to block a user for a three-revert rule violation or not.
Please note that there are some exceptions to the three-revert rule.
- 1 What is a revert?
- 2 Exceptions
- 3 Not an entitlement
- 4 Enforcement
- 5 Avoiding 3RR violations
- 6 I have violated 3RR. What do I do?
- 7 Notes
- 8 See also
What is a revert?
A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.
An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.
There are some exceptions to the three-revert rule; however, since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly.
Reverting without edit warring
- Consecutive reverts by the same user with no intervening edits by another user will be counted as one revert.
- Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not count as a revert.
The following edits are agreed to be unwanted and may be reverted without counting towards the 3RR.
- Simple and obvious vandalism.
- Simple vandalism constitutes edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking, adding bad language, etc.
- Content changes, adding or removing tags, edits which are against consensus, and similar items are not exempt.
- Other venues to report vandalism are Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- Addition of copyright violations or content violating the non-free content policy.
- Addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.
- Reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.
- Reverts to conform with community consensus on geographic names which fall within the scope of the Gdansk Vote.
- Undoing actions performed by banned users.
Any of these actions may still be controversial; thus, it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance.
Note that in the case of vandalism, blocking editors who have engaged in vandalism or protecting the page in question will often be better than reverting. Similarly, blocking or page protection will often be preferable in the case of repeated addition of copyrighted material.
Not an entitlement
Edit warring is disruptive, and attempts to avoid this rule are even more disruptive. Trying to avoid breaching this rule by only making two reverts per day over an extended period, for example, is "gaming the system" and can also lead to administrative action. Rules such as this exist as guidelines for action, but are not set standards. Editors should remember that edit warring is not helpful to building an encyclopedia, and adhere to the spirit of the rules rather than the letter.
Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block. In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides fairly.
Additionally, the rule is enforced by:
- educating editors who may not be aware of good Wikipedia practice in the matter; and
- peer pressure and leadership by example (see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club).
Editors can be warned about 3RR by using this warning template.
Apparent breaches of the rule may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
Avoiding 3RR violations
Editors who find themselves on the verge of 3RR violations have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the article Talk page, requesting a third opinion or comment on the article, or one of the many other methods of dispute resolution.
I have violated 3RR. What do I do?
If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees.
- ^ See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute#3RR is not an entitlement.
- ^ See Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE: Enforcement.
See alsoListen to this page (info/dl)
This audio file was created from a revision dated 2005-04-10, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the page. (Audio help) More spoken pages
- Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement
- Wikipedia:Edit war
- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
- Wikipedia:Blocking policy
Link former page on this page
Related word on this page