Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Administrator instructions

This is a guide for administrators (and experienced non-admin volunteers) on how they should approach reports made at the edit warring noticeboard.

Edit warring
Users may be blocked for continued edit warring to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. A violation of the 3RR rule (see below) is not a requisite for an editor to be blocked for edit warring. Blocking admins can use the {{subst:uw-ewblock}} template when blocking for edit warring.

WP:3RR
A user may be blocked for making 4 or more reverts to an article in a 24 hour period. A courtesy warning, such as {{subst:uw-3rr}}, may be given on their talk page, though warnings are not a requisite for a block. Note that the 3RR rule applies per person, not per account, thus reverts made by multiple accounts count together. Blocking admins may use the {{subst:Uw-3block}} template when blocking for 3RR.

How to deal with reports

 * 1) The simplest way to check a 3RR violation is to look at the article's history. If it's clear that a violation has been committed then a block/warning may be in order.
 * 2) Check to see if a courtesy warn has been issued  the 4th revert. A warning is not requisite for a block for 3RR or edit warring, though try not to bite new-comers as they may be unaware of the rules.
 * 3) Actioning non-3RR reports requires the admin's discretion to check for dialogue and whether the user is "experienced" and/or if they have been blocked for edit war violations in the past.
 * 4) It may also be useful to look at the reporter's history too, as they may have violated 3RR or edit warred themselves. If so, they may also be blocked.
 * 5) Admins should check the diffs in the report to make sure they're actually reverts (See ). (If there are no diffs, then it is best to check the article's history, but, otherwise, it's considered a "malformed" report and the reporting user should be notified of that.) A partial revert is also a revert.
 * 6) After deciding on action(s), if any, to be taken (See ) and carrying out said action(s), the admin dealing with the report should leave a brief summary at the bottom of the report and in the report header (e.g. (Result: 24 hour block)). It is also a good idea to post on the talkpages of the involved users.

Results

 * If the admin decides a block is warranted, then they must take into account the user's past history of edit warring (by checking their block log), if any, and the severity of the 3RR violation.
 * Article/page protection may be used instead of a block. This is most effective if the edit war is between new users and/or IPs or multiple users.
 * If the edit war is clearly a content dispute, then referring the users to WP:RfM and/or WP:RFC can prevent the need for blocks.
 * Additionally, admins can offer to mediate disputes themselves if other methods have so far failed.


 * Article or topic bans may be enacted if a user has a history of edit warring. This can be effective to induce positive discussion between parties of contributors, but can be difficult to appropriately enforce.
 * If the administrator feels a user has edit warred, but has not violated 3RR, and/or where a block would be punitive, then he/she can issue another warning in place of a block.
 * Occasionally, a report may be considered too "old" (See ) to take action on and can be marked as "Stale".

BLP circumstances
Biographies of living persons are considered to be the most fragile part of Wikipedia today. The potential for libelous materials to enter into an article about a living or recently deceased person and cause a great deal of damage for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation is omnipresent. Therefore, it is paramount for administrators to take this policy into account when dealing with 3RR reports.

For example, if two users are edit warring over a BLP, one is removing a potentially libelous statement and the other is entering it, then the user removing it may be given the benefit of the doubt. Essentially, if the user, who is removing the potentially damaging statement(s), violates 3RR, then their violation may be exempt from any action taken. Unfortunately, this can be very subjective and any 3RR report on a BLP should be scrutinised with the utmost care and attention to WP:AGF.

If there is any confusion at all for the admin closing the report then they should post a message on WP:AN and/or WP:ANI to get wider input from the community.

Gaming the system
A user may make 3 reverts in a 24 hour period and then make a 4th (or more) after that 24 hour period. A demonstrable pattern of this behaviour is known as "gaming the system" (See WP:GAME). Administrators may choose to block users for edit warring, even if they have not technically violated 3RR. Further, and as noted above: use of multiple accounts count as one for edit warring and 3RR; and also consider the actions of all parties involved, as the person making the report may also be breaking the rules.

Stale reports
A report, colloquially on Wikipedia, that is considered "old", or "out of date" is referred to as "stale". There is no set time or date for when a 3RR report is considered stale; it is generally left up to the administrators to decide on this.

One important thing to note when closing a report is, if a block is to be carried out, will it be punitive or preventative? When an administrator looks at a report, if a user has violated 3RR but has reverted for a lengthy amount of time (in their opinion), then the block may be considered a "punishment", and, therefore, should not be executed.

Administrators are only recommended to make blocks where it will damage to Wikipedia. If there is doubt about whether the block will be considered punitive or not, do not block. Contact either WP:AN or WP:ANI for wider communal input or use other forms of action.

Miscellaneous

 * Admins should avoid taking action if they are involved in a particular dispute related to the report. Instead, they should request third party assistance.
 * If in any doubt at all about what decision to make when analysing a report, admins should post a message at WP:AN or WP:ANI asking for another opinion, and/or on the actual report.
 * Remember to AGF when dealing with reports; new users may not be aware of 3RR and its implications.