Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki
Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki
The Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki is continually revising our policies.
If you locate any unwritten rule that should be clarified, use the talk page to make a proposal

The Three-Revert Rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to all members of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki. The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single article within 72 hours (three days) of their first reversion.

For the purposes of counting reverts, this does not apply to

  • Reverting your own changes (Self-reverts)
  • Correction of simple vandalism
  • Removing posts made by a banned or blocked user
  • Rearranging contents inside a page

This rule does not imply that reverting three times or less is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times in the given time.

Using sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit. Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct.


Reverting in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor, or other editors, in whole or part or even re-adding the same content over and over again. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting.

Use common sense; don't participate in an edit war. Rather than exceeding the three-revert limit, discuss the matter with other editors. If any of them come close to breaching the policy themselves, this may indicate that the page should be protected until disputes are resolved.

The policy is applied independently to each page; reversions are not counted cumulatively across multiple pages. For example, if an editor performs three reversions on each of two articles within 48 hours, that editor's six reversions do not constitute a violation of this policy.

This policy does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism, or reversions for the purpose of maintenance, or reverting the edits of a banned or blocked user.

This policy does apply to repeatedly moving, renaming, deleting, undeleting, or recreating a page. All of these, if done excessively, are forms of edit warring.

Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count.

Intent of the Policy

The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; it is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 48 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.

If you find you have redo the same edit in a page even once in a day it may be a sign there is a problem and you should try resolving the dispute, starting with contacting the editor who has removed your edit, or using the article's talk page.

It is strongly recommended that you revert any particular change once and only once.

Blocking is always preventative, not punitive. Historical incidents are of no interest - please do not report anything other than current and ongoing problems.



In general, blocking is the preferred solution to repeat vandalism originating from a single user or IP. Where an article is drawing vandalism from multiple sources, making blocking ineffective, page protection should be used unless there is genuine potential that useful editing would be affected.

Therefore, repeated reversion of an article to deal with vandalism is a last resort.

In cases of vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute, the three-revert rule does not apply: editors can remove the vandalized content as many times as necessary, and administrators need not revert a simple vandal even twice, because they should have been blocked already by that time.

Simple vandalism is indisputable; do not confuse it with edits which you simply disagree with

User pages

The three-revert-rule is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to their own user page space (this includes associated blog posts and subpages), on the principle that even though you do not "own" them, your user space is "yours" (for project-related purposes).


This rule is enforced by:

  • Educating users who may not be aware of good wiki 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. 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 using their Message Walls.

Chronic offenders may be subject to longer bans from administrators. This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside the time period, or by making complex reverts which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording.

In Case of Being Blocked...

First, check if you actually did make a fourth revert in 48 hours or very close to it.

  • If you didn't, you should contact the admin who blocked your account, politely point this out and ask to be unblocked. If you obtain no answer, then contact another admin.
  • If you did, you should either wait the for until your block expires, or contact the admin who blocked you, acknowledge your error, and ask to be unblocked. The admin may, of course, choose not to.

Some admins may look at the quality of the edits in question. Others do not.