RuneScape talk:Three-revert rule

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:Three-revert rule page.

Wikipedia[edit source]

Wikipedia's 3RR rule has been moved to [[/Wikipedia]] for reference in developing this policy. Skill 06:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Block time[edit source]

12 hours is more than enough time to cool down. May be coloured blue in the near

Discussion[edit source]

Support as nominator, founder, etc. Done whoozy! 22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I made it into a policy, as I think no one has any objections to it. If there are any, then they can be stated here if anyone brings them up. Skill 05:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

24 period of time[edit source]

I've seen some situations where some editors will get in an edit war, and deliberately try to make it something much more protracted in terms of reverts. Basically only reverting once a day/week or what have you, but being very consistent and "owning" the article. And that was on Wikipedia.

The 24 hour limit is something nice to calm down the most blatant of edit wars...especially when trying to deal with a blatant vandal who could normally care less about getting blocked. For them it is a game, to see if admins have the guts to actually impose the block.

Still, setting up this rule is better than not having something like this. I'm curious about something here, however. What were some of the situations that occurred on this wiki where having a rule like this would have been necessary? I'm an admin on en.wikibooks, a project that has been going now for almost 5 years and much larger than this wiki, and there hasn't been a need to set up such a policy like this one on that project even though I have blocked and banned some users due to disruptive behavior, including blatant edit wars. --Robert Horning 15:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary discussions?[edit source]

Well, they're loads better than reverting without saying a thing. Just giving my two cents. May be coloured blue in the near

..............READ the edit summary I made: (wrong... you aren't supposed to hold discussions in edit summaries, do it on talk pages) TALK PAGE. A talk page isn't "reverting without saying a thing." ChristineTalkFlickr 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
But if you revert my edits without saying a word (which has happened many times in the past), and I explain why the edit should be there, I think I'd be "more in the right" than you are. Not trying to start a fight with you, only giving an example. May be coloured blue in the near
Any conflicting ideas need to be placed on the talk page where it is easy to discuss and see all points of an argument. It just makes sense. ChristineTalkFlickr 23:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I get it now. May be coloured blue in the near