User:FT2/EW2



Wikipedia pages develop by discussion, with users trying to work together, and by seeking dispute resolution and help if this isn't working. An edit war occurs when contributors, or groups of contributors, fight over their preferred views rather than discuss them.

Edit warring is extremely bad for the project and its readers and editors. It harms content, causes problems for both readers and editors, and makes collaboration less pleasant. Attempts to instate one version of an article at the expense of another can lead to the loss of a neutral point of view, lack of consensus, or articles written to a poorer standard. For these reasons, contributors should not engage in edit wars, but should instead resolve disagreements through discussion, consensus-building and ultimately dispute resolution.

Edit warring can lead to a block or other sanction for users who engage in the activity. Users who continue to edit war after proper education, warnings, and blocks on the matter degrade the community and the encyclopedia, and may lose their editing privileges indefinitely.

Useful links:
 * Dispute resolution
 * Administrators' noticeboard for edit warring and 3RR violations
 * Blocking policy

The editing process
Wikipedia holds as its core approach, that an open system can produce quality, neutral encyclopedic content. This requires reasoned negotiation, patience, and a strong community spirit, each of which is undercut by antisocial behavior like incivility and edit warring. Reversion exists to undo in full an edit that has no merit whatsoever, not to refute an editor with whom one happens to disagree.

A content revert intentionally reverses all changes that may be made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason.

What is edit warring?
Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a content dispute.

Typically a user who edit wars is ignoring editorial norms and often reverting rather than considering others' points. On Wikipedia, content should be written appropriately in accordance with policies and guidelines. If editors disagree they should discuss it rather than fight, and should calmly seek outside opinions from other editors if agreement is not reached or the matter cannot be resolved. If there is a strong disagreement, then the users should accept they cannot agree and seek dispute resolution rather than disrupt the article or engage in improper editing. The fact that one user is "pushing an agenda" is not an excuse for another user to edit war.

"Edit warriors" are users who fight aggressively, or try to game the system or stack the discussion, rather than seek consensus. Such behavior is disruptive, harmful, and unproductive, and often leads to external intervention by other users. Edit warring is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle.

What is not edit warring
In a number of cases, reverting or rejecting edits is necessary, including (but not limited to):
 * Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring. Note that repeated posting of confirmed misinformation or repeated large scale removal of content is often considered vandalism, but in general merely editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes, are not necessarily considered vandalism. (See Types of vandalism and What is not vandalism)
 * Enforcing certain overriding policies. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal (possibly backed by administrative action) is the norm until it is fixed and policy-compliant.

The Three revert rule
The "Three revert rule" ("3RR") is a bright line rule concerning blatant overuse of reverting, a common kind of edit war behavior. It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any material) on any one page within a 24 hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24 hour period for a first incident. The aim of 3RR is to draw a line where edit warring via reverts is clearly beyond a reasonable level and action will be taken if it has not already been. As such it does not apply in a few narrowly defined situations where there is no edit war (listed below).

3RR is one specific measure of edit warring. Note that any administrator may still act anyway, if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, whether or not 3RR has been breached.

Application of 3RR
A "page" is any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. (This differs from the definition of "revert" used elsewhere in the project.)

The rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts count together. The rule applies per page; reverts spread across multiple pages so that an editor does not revert a single page more than three times do not violate the rule (but may indicate disruptive editing).

'''3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring that have not violated 3RR.'''

If an editor breaks the three-revert rule by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases, for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and appears to be trying to rectify a genuine mistake.

Exceptions to 3RR

 * Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
 * Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may have to revert vandalism repeatedly before administrators can respond.
 * Reverting actions performed by banned users.
 * Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
 * Reverting the addition of content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida (where the servers are located), such as child pornography and pirated software.
 * Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption to support an edit war.
 *  Reverting edits to your own user space, provided that in doing so you are not edit warring against other users related to applicable policies, such as copyright, privacy, user page guidelines or BLP.

However, even these actions may at times be controversial or considered edit warring; if in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution, ask for administrative assistance, or consider posting a clear explanatory note on a suitable talk page, and visibly linking to it for any reviewing administrator.

Handling of edit warring behaviors
Edit wars that remain unresolved have several routes forward. Ideally the participants cease warring until consensus can be obtained, possibly involving other users to do so. Edit warring is usually futile and pointless; alternative approaches recommended within the community are suggested below.

If despite trying, one or more users will not cease, refuses to work collaboratively or heed the information given them, or will not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm. A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a uw-3rr template message on their talk page.

Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. In general, repeated reverts made without the support of prior consensus or without sufficient discussion are likely to be considered edit warring, as are other patterns of generally disruptive or obstructive behavior. The decision how seriously to rate the behavior is often influenced by whether a user appears to be deliberately trying to prevent others' editing, especially if it appears they are willfully doing so by gaming the system or more calculated or egregious abuse, such as spacing out reverts in a slow edit war, tag team reverting (where more than one user works together as a "revert team"), misuse of multiple accounts, or repeatedly using reverts in a combative fashion. Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides.

Alternatives and avoidance
In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Editing policy. When this does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute.

Editors who find themselves on the verge of a three-revert rule violation have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the page's talk page, requesting a third opinion or comment on the article, or one of the many other methods of dispute resolution.

The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute.

A number of experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse.

When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution. The bottom line is use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another uninvolved editor might do it, which will demonstrate a consensus for the action. Stay cool and seek help, rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.