Wikipedia talk:Edit war/Merged

policy nutshell

An edit war occurs when editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area on Wikipedia. Such behavior is usually seen as an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, rather than consensus-building, and is prohibited. Users who perform excessive reverts in content disputes can be subject to blocking, frequently under the longstanding three-revert rule.

What is a revert?
A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.

An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page multiple times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page are counted.

Consecutive reverts by one editor are treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule.

The three-revert rule
The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring:


 * An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.

The rule applies per editor. The use of multiple accounts is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and reverts by multiple accounts are counted as reverts made by one editor. The rule otherwise applies to all editors individually.

The rule applies per page. For example, if an editor performs three reverts on each of two articles within 24 hours, that editor's six reversions do not constitute a violation of this rule, although it may well indicate that the editor is being disruptive.

The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.

Please note that there are some exceptions to the three-revert rule.

Enforcement
Editors who violate the three-revert rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated or aggravated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block. In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.

Additionally, the rule is enforced by:


 * educating editors who may not be aware of good Wikipedia practice in the matter; and
 * peer pressure and leadership by example (see Revert only when necessary and Harmonious editing club).

Editors can be warned about 3RR by using this warning template.

Apparent breaches of the rule may be reported at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

Exceptions
Since this rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule. Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly.

Since reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not violate the rule.

There are other instances where multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy:


 * reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. (For other, less obvious forms of vandalism, please see Administrator intervention against vandalism or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents);
 * reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies;
 * reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Biographies of living persons);
 * reverts to undo actions performed by banned users or currently blocked users evading their block;
 * reverts to conform with community consensus on geographic names which fall within the scope of the Gdansk Vote.


 * reverts done by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere;

Any of these actions may still be controversial; thus, it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance.

Note that in the case of vandalism, blocking editors who have engaged in vandalism or protecting the page in question will often be better than reverting. Similarly, blocking or page protection will often be preferable in the case of repeated addition of copyrighted material.

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