User:Raymond arritt/Editwar draft

Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of Wikiquette. Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit.

Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally. An edit war is the opposite of this, with two sides each fighting to make their version the only one.

What is wrong with edit warring?
Wikipedia is founded on the principle that an open system can produce quality, neutral encyclopedic content. This requires reasoned negotiation, patience, and a strong community spirit, each of which are undercut by antisocial behavior like incivility and edit warring. A content revert is an intentional reversal of the changes made in good faith by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute. Editors who continue to edit war after proper education, warnings, and preventive blocks can seriously degrade article quality and disrupt the collaborative spirit of the community needed to support the encyclopedia.

What is edit warring?
Edit warring is repeated use of confrontational reversions to win a content dispute. Identifying edit warring is often a judgment call administrators must make when cooling disputes or determining whether a behavioral violation has occurred. Among the the things they consider:
 * 1) The three-revert rule, abbreviated 3RR. Surpassing an absolute limit of three reverts on any one page in under 24 hours, with certain enumerated exceptions, is a strong indication of edit warring.
 * 2) A short burst of reverts under the 3RR may also be edit warring
 * 3) Less frequent reverts across a protracted period of time
 * 4) Reverts accompanied by hostile edit summaries or promises to continue reverting
 * 5) A pattern of similar reverts across multiple pages

Edit warring is a distinct behavior characterized by a confrontational attitude. It is different in spirit than bold, revert, discuss cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is never edit-warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious POV edits and other good-faith changes, do not constitute vandalism.

Edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

What are the consequences?
The first resort in an edit war is always to attempt to inform users, especially new users, of Wikipedia's policies and practices, and the problems with their approach to editing. If other users observe such an ongoing exchange and cannot "talk down" the involved parties, or encourage them to enter the dispute resolution process, the involved offenders may be blocked for a period of time or the affected page(s) may be subject to protection at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. Protection is useful when there is reason to believe that the involved parties will take the opportunity to resolve the conflict. Blocks are preferred when there is evidence that a user cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior. It is common for repeat offenders to face escalating blocks, and decreasing latitude for uncooperative behavior. In severe cases of abuse, warring parties who persist in punitive editing may be subject to Arbitration. Long term incorrigible edit warriors are usually eventually banned, prevented from editing or reverting in their areas of conflict, or lose interest in fighting their battles on Wikipedia and leave.

The three-revert rule
While the point at which spirited disagreement crosses the line into edit warring is not always obvious, there is a community consensus that reverting more than three times in one day on the same article carries a strong presumption of edit warring.

Alternatives
Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles and reflect badly on both participants. Ideally, no one would engage in them, or everyone would moderate their behavior when alerted to the misconduct. Instead of simply reverting, editors should cooperatively seek compromise, or alternative methods to register their disapproval. The harmonious editing club recommends reverting only once, and then taking the matter to the talk page. Before going beyond that, consider asking a person to discuss a disputed edit on their user talk page or yours. When that fails dispute resolution is available, formally or informally, eventually leading to Arbitration Committee cases for problem editors. It is helpful to assume good faith and remember that one is dealing with other people, most of whom are sincere and altruistic in their motivations for editing. Even when we find their actions disagreeable, they are most likely trying to do what is best in their own way. It is easy to misunderstand intentions and overestimate others' aggression on the Internet. Believing that an adversary is simply "wrong," "POV," or uncooperative is often counterproductive, and never an excuse for edit warring. If the dispute resolution process is followed things are usually sorted out; parties who are truly irredeemable will eventually be dealt with. Although edits made in this collaborative spirit involve more time and thought than reflexive reverts, they serve to ensure more objective and stable articles, and a more satisfactory editing environment overall. In the case of less experienced contributors who have unknowingly made poor edits, reversion by two or more people, accompanied with patient and constructive edit summaries, often demonstrates that such reversions represent consensus.

Editors with combative mindsets should seek to replace an edit warring approach with that of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle or Revert only when necessary. That way dissenters may come to agree with each other's position; even if not they may understand and respect it, and neutral editors and administrators who step into the dispute are can more easily spot and curb edits that are truly egregious (see DefendEachOther). In heated cases, introspection and detachment from the subject can cool tempers. One does not have to edit war simply because another person is doing so. That runs the risk that you too will violate Wikipedia policy in the heat of a dispute, perhaps unintentionally. Remember, nobody ever died in an edit war. If the page is not fixed today, there is always tomorrow, when people are more calm.

Related policies

 * Dispute resolution
 * Ownership of articles
 * Sock puppetry
 * Three-revert rule

Related guidelines

 * Etiquette
 * Disruptive editing

Other

 * Lamest edit wars
 * Tendentious editing

ar:ويكيبيديا:حرب تحرير الصفحات de:Wikipedia:Edit-War es:Wikipedia:Guerra de ediciones fr:Wikipédia:Guerre d'édition id:Wikipedia:Perang suntingan it:Wikipedia:Edit war he:ויקיפדיה:מלחמת עריכה hu:Wikipédia:Szerkesztési háború ja:Wikipedia:編集合戦 pl:Wikipedia:Wojna edycyjna ru:Википедия:Война правок sr:Википедија:Уређивачки рат fi:Wikipedia:Muokkaussota sv:Wikipedia:Redigeringskrig yi:װיקיפּעדיע:עדיט מלחמה zh:Wikipedia:編輯戰