Another one of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:

This policy applies to each person. Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the 3RR specifically does not apply to groups. If the edit really needs reverting that much, somebody else 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 Wikipedians 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.

After making a reversion, do not do so again more than two times within 24 hours of the initial one. This policy doesn't apply to self-reverts or correcting simple vandalism.

This principle could be compared to the Ko rule in Go (one cannot repeat positions), or chess's threefold repetition rule.

Intent of the policy

The three revert rule is an "electric fence", not an entitlement. The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

If you find you have reverted a page more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page.

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 not an administrator, you should list the person on vandalism in progress. 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 to apply 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

A vote passed to give further enforcement power to this rule:

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

Additionally, this rule is enforced by:

• Educating users who may not be aware of good Wikipedia practice in the matter.
• Peer pressure and leadership by example.
• Where pages are protected due to revert wars, sysops 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 sysop 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

Chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee.

See also

• Edit war
• Wikiquette