Misplaced Pages

:Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:58, 4 December 2013 view sourceEpicgenius (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers329,777 edits →The three-revert rule: red for warning← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:24, 22 December 2024 view source Bbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,101 edits Undid revision 1264492884 by EricXXue (talk) better beforeTag: Undo 
(640 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Misplaced Pages policy on editor conduct}}
{{Redirect3|WP:EW|'''To report editors who are edit warring, please see the ]'''}}
<noinclude>{{pp|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
{{Policy|WP:EW|WP:WAR|WP:EDITWAR|WP:EDITWARRING}}
{{redirect|WP:WAR|similar topics|WP:NOTBATTLE|and|Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not about winning|and|Misplaced Pages:Page-move war|and|Misplaced Pages:Wheel war|and|Misplaced Pages:Genre warrior}}
{{nutshell|Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion.}}
{{about||the technical problem when multiple editors try to edit the same page at once|Help:Edit conflict|reporting editors who are edit warring|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring}}
]
{{Policy|subcategory=conduct|WP:EW|WP:WAR|WP:EDITWAR}}
{{nutshell|Don't use edits to fight with other editors. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion.}}
]
]


An '''edit war''' occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly ]<!-- EDIT WARRING CAN ALSO HAPPEN WITH NO FORMAL REVERSION; HENCE "BY REPEATEDLY OVERRIDING" HERE --> each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a ]. Users who engage in edit wars risk being ] or even ]. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". An '''edit war''' occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override<!-- EDIT WARRING CAN ALSO HAPPEN WITH NO FORMAL REVERSION; HENCE "BY REPEATEDLY OVERRIDING" HERE --> each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach ] or pursue ] rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being ] or even ]. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.


There is a ] known as the ''']''' (3RR). A ] means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of ] by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the ]; see ] for details. The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it '''''is not''''' a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. There is a ] known as the {{strong|]}} ({{strong|3RR}}). To ] is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of ] by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot will usually be considered edit warring. There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons; see ] for details. The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it {{em|is not}} a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.


== What edit warring is == ==What edit warring is==
{{see also|Misplaced Pages:Editing policy}}
{{Conduct policy list}} {{Conduct policy list}}
{{See also|Misplaced Pages:Editing policy}}
Misplaced Pages encourages editors to ]. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the ] (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring:
* Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, editing from a slanted ], general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. See {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Vandalism|Types of vandalism}} and ].
* Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the ], where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required.
* Reverting edits by ] or ] users is not edit warring.
* Reverting edits in one's own user page is rarely edit warring. Traditionally, Misplaced Pages offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. For more information, see {{Section link|Misplaced Pages:User pages|Ownership and editing of user pages}}.


Misplaced Pages encourages editors to ], but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a ] (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring:
When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the ] and/or ]. Anti-vandalism tools such as ], ] and ] should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes without an appropriate edit summary.
* Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted ], general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. See {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Vandalism|Types of vandalism}} and {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Vandalism|What is not vandalism}}.
* Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the ], where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required.
* Reverting edits of ] or ] users is not edit warring.
* Reverting edits in one's own user page is rarely edit warring. Traditionally, Misplaced Pages offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. For more information, see {{section link|Misplaced Pages:User pages|Ownership and editing of user pages}}.


When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the ] and/or ]. Anti-vandalism tools such as ], ] and ] should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes without an appropriate edit summary.
=== The three-revert rule ===
{{clear}}
{{shortcut|WP:3RR}}{{anchor|Application}}

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be ] from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a ] called the '''three-revert rule''' ('''3RR'''), the violation of which often leads to a block.
===The three-revert rule===
{{policy shortcut|WP:3RR|WP:4RR}}{{anchor|Application}}

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be ] from editing to prevent further ] to the affected page. While any amount of edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a ] called the {{strong|three-revert rule}} ({{strong|3RR}}), the violation of which will usually be considered edit warring, and often leads to the user engaging in the behavior to be blocked.


The three-revert rule states: The three-revert rule states:
{{divbox|red|radius=1em||An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a '''single page'''—whether involving the same or different material—within a '''24-hour period'''. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. '''See below for exemptions.'''}}


<!--Do not use {{divbox}} template. It does not display on mobile devices-->
A "page" means any page on Misplaced Pages, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.{{clarify|date=April 2013|reason=it should be made clear if an initial edit modifying a page (edited by the other person/persons) counts}} A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.
<div style="border: 2px solid #990000; background-color: #FFCCCC; border-radius: 1em; padding: 10px;">
An editor must not perform {{strong|more than three reverts}} on a {{strong|single page}}—whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See ] for exemptions.
</div>


The term "page" in the three-revert rule above is defined as any page on Misplaced Pages, including those in talk and project ]. The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using ], ], or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.
The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by ] operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. {{anchor|Not an entitlement|Is not an entitlement}} Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may ] with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is '''not an entitlement''' to revert a page a specific number of times.


{{anchor|Notentitled}}The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by ] operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. {{anchor|Not an entitlement|Is not an entitlement}} Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may ] with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is {{strong|not an entitlement}} to revert a page a specific number of times.
If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should ] 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 is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake.


If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should ] 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 is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake.
====3RR exemptions====
{{anchor|Exceptions|Reverting potentially libellous material}}<!--- pls don't change sec title without adding old title to anchor --->
{{shortcut|WP:3RRNO|WP:NOT3RR}}


Edit warring and 3RR violations are not detected automatically. Either wait for an administrator to take action, or take any of the steps suggested in the {{section link||What to do if you see edit-warring behavior }} section below.
The following actions are ''not'' counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:


===Exemptions===
# Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
<!---Please do not change this section's title without adding the old title to the anchor. --->
# <span id="Exception_for_user_page_and_user_subpages" />Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the ] guidelines.
{{policy shortcut|WP:3RRNO|WP:NOT3RR|WP:3RRBLP}}{{anchor|3RR Exemptions|3RR exemptions|Exceptions|Reverting potentially libellous material}}
# Reverting actions performed by ], and ] of banned and ] users.
# Reverting '''obvious''' ]—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
# Removal of clear ] or content that '''unquestionably''' violates ] (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the ] noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
# Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as ] and ].
# Removal of ]ous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on ] (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the ] instead of relying on this exemption.


The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy:
Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a ] while it appears on the ].
# {{anchor|EX1}}Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
# {{anchor|EX2}}{{anchor|Exception_for_user_page_and_user_subpages}}Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, as long as you are respecting the ] guidelines.
# {{anchor|EX3}}Reverting actions performed by ] in violation of a ban, and ] or ] of banned or ] users.
# {{anchor|EX4}}Reverting '''obvious''' ]—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as ] and adding offensive language.
# {{anchor|EX5}}Removal of clear ] or content that '''unquestionably''' violates ] (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at ] instead of relying on this exemption.
# {{anchor|EX6}}Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as ] and ].
# {{anchor|EX7|EXBLP}}Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Misplaced Pages's ] (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the ] instead of relying on this exemption.
# {{anchor|EX8}}Reverting unambiguous ], where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion ] if it were a standalone page.


Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a ] while it appears on the ].
If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in ], and in particular ask for help at ] such as the ].

If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, follow the guidance below in {{section link||Handling of edit-warring behaviors}}.


===Other revert rules=== ===Other revert rules===
{{shortcut|WP:0RR|WP:1RR}} {{policy shortcut|WP:0RR|WP:1RR}}
{{redirect2|WP:0RR|WP:1RR|zero-revert rule for administrative action (no wheel-warring)|WP:0WW}}
Additional restrictions on reverting are sometimes imposed on particular editors and/or particular pages, by ] or under ], or by the community (see ] and ]). These may be phrased using such terms as '''1RR''' ("one-revert rule") or '''0RR''' ("zero-revert rule"). A "one-revert rule" is often analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". Often there is also a requirement to discuss each of the reversions on the talk page, and sometimes the words "24-hour period" are also replaced by "1 week". A zero-revert rule means a complete prohibition on reverts (as defined for the purposes of the three-revert rule). Editors can also voluntarily agree to abide by a stricter standard on reverting such as 1RR or 0RR, either in response to problems in a particular area, or as a general editing philosophy. For more details, see ].


Additional restrictions on reverting may be imposed by the ], by admins under ] procedures, or by the community under ]. These restrictions include:
== Handling of edit-warring behaviors ==
=== What to do if you see edit-warring behavior ===
]


:{{strong|one-revert rule}} ({{strong|1RR}}): The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described ], with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". There may also be a requirement to discuss each reversion on the talk page, and sometimes the phrase "24-hour period" is replaced by some other time period, such as "one week" or "one month". The rule may be applied to pages (excepting Talk pages) or editors.
It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring over it. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should '''cease warring''' and discuss the issue on the talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues. Other alternative approaches recommended within the community are suggested ].


:{{strong|zero-revert rule}} ({{strong|0RR}}): The zero-revert rule means a complete prohibition on reverts (as defined for the purpose of the three-revert rule) applied to one or more editors.
If, despite trying, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the ] 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 {{tl|uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page. Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down.


An imposed rule does not apply retroactively. That is, if an editor has reverted in the past 24 hours before a 1RR has been applied, their first subsequent revert is not a violation, although editors in these instances are strongly encouraged to discuss instead of revert.
=== How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars {{anchor|Avoiding three-revert rule violations}} ===
{{Nutshell|title=This section|Communication is the key to avoiding conflict. Follow {{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Editing policy|Talking and editing}}.|shortcut=WP:AVOIDEDITWAR}}
Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on ] and discuss the matter on the article's ], which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that ] and that editors can add ] to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a ] or starting a ]. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. If these methods fail, seek informal and formal ].


Editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow 1RR or 0RR (see {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines|Bold}}). Editors may also voluntarily agree to abide by stricter reverting standards on other pages in response to problems in a particular area or as a general editing philosophy. For more details, see ].
Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the ] 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, i.e., they ]. This policy may be particularly appropriate for ] where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.


==Handling of edit-warring behaviors==
The bottom line: ''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 editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate ] for the action. ] rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.
===What to do if you see edit-warring behavior===
{{See also|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution}}
]


It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should {{strong|cease warring}} and discuss the issue on the associated talk page or seek help at appropriate venues. Other alternative approaches recommended within the community are suggested in {{section link||How to avoid an edit war}}.
== Administrator guidance ==
Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to ] disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as ] and previous blocks. Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues. According to ], "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."


If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{tls|uw-ewsoft}}, {{tls|uw-ew}}, or {{tls|uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page. Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down.
==Further reading==

* Yasseri T, Sumi R, Rung A, Kornai A, Kertész J (2012) . ] 7(6): e38869. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038869
If several days have passed since the last edit action, consider doing nothing—our primary objective is to stop {{em|active}} edit wars.

If, despite such efforts, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then consider making a request for administrative involvement. The standard way to do this is to add a report at ].

=== How to avoid an edit war ===
{{anchor|Avoiding three-revert rule violations|How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars}}
{{Nutshell|title=This section|Communication is the key to avoiding conflict. Follow {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Editing policy|Talking and editing}}.|shortcut=WP:AVOIDEDITWAR}}

Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on ] and discuss the matter on the associated ], which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Instead of reverting, add an ] and keep in mind that ]. ''See also'' ].

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the ] 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, i.e., they ]. This policy may be particularly appropriate for ] where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a ] or starting a ]. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. If these methods fail, seek informal and formal ].

Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without prompting), which would then demonstrate ] for the action. ] rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

The bottom line: {{em|use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars}}.

==Administrator guidance==
Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to ] disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as ] and previous blocks. Where multiple editors engage in edit wars or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.

According to ], "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party)."


==See also== ==See also==
{{columns-list|colwidth=29em|
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 87: Line 119:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ] (how-to)
* ] ** ] (essay)
** ] (essay)
** ] (essay)
** ] (essay)
** ] (essay)
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
}}

==Further reading==
* {{Cite journal |last1=Yasseri |first1=Taha |last2=Sumi |first2=Robert |last3=Rung |first3=András |last4=Kornai |first4=András |last5=Kertész |first5=János |date=June 20, 2012 |title=Dynamics of Conflicts in Misplaced Pages |journal=] |volume=7 |issue=6 |pages=e38869 |arxiv=1202.3643 |bibcode=2012PLoSO...738869Y |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0038869 |doi-access=free |pmc=3380063 |pmid=22745683 |ref=none}}


{{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}} {{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}}

]
]
]

Latest revision as of 16:24, 22 December 2024

Misplaced Pages policy on editor conduct

"WP:WAR" redirects here. For similar topics, see WP:NOTBATTLE, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not about winning, Misplaced Pages:Page-move war, Misplaced Pages:Wheel war, and Misplaced Pages:Genre warrior. For the technical problem when multiple editors try to edit the same page at once, see Help:Edit conflict. For reporting editors who are edit warring, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.Shortcuts
This page in a nutshell: Don't use edits to fight with other editors. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion.
Misplaced Pages page history showing a severe edit war
Edit warring doesn't help when attempting to resolve disputes. In fact, engaging in such behavior will usually inflame the dispute, poisoning the environment that all Misplaced Pages editors share.

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot will usually be considered edit warring. There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons; see below for details. The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.

What edit warring is

Conduct policies
See also: Misplaced Pages:Editing policy

Misplaced Pages encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring:

When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page. Anti-vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes without an appropriate edit summary.

The three-revert rule

Shortcuts

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the affected page. While any amount of edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which will usually be considered edit warring, and often leads to the user engaging in the behavior to be blocked.

The three-revert rule states:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

The term "page" in the three-revert rule above is defined as any page on Misplaced Pages, including those in talk and project spaces. The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.

The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

If an editor violates 3RR 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 is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake.

Edit warring and 3RR violations are not detected automatically. Either wait for an administrator to take action, or take any of the steps suggested in the § What to do if you see edit-warring behavior section below.

Exemptions

Shortcuts

The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy:

  1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
  2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, as long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
  3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users.
  4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
  5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
  6. Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
  7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
  8. Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page.

Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the Main Page.

If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, follow the guidance below in § Handling of edit-warring behaviors.

Other revert rules

Shortcuts "WP:0RR" and "WP:1RR" redirect here. For zero-revert rule for administrative action (no wheel-warring), see WP:0WW.

Additional restrictions on reverting may be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, by admins under contentious topics procedures, or by the community under General sanctions. These restrictions include:

one-revert rule (1RR): The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". There may also be a requirement to discuss each reversion on the talk page, and sometimes the phrase "24-hour period" is replaced by some other time period, such as "one week" or "one month". The rule may be applied to pages (excepting Talk pages) or editors.
zero-revert rule (0RR): The zero-revert rule means a complete prohibition on reverts (as defined for the purpose of the three-revert rule) applied to one or more editors.

An imposed rule does not apply retroactively. That is, if an editor has reverted in the past 24 hours before a 1RR has been applied, their first subsequent revert is not a violation, although editors in these instances are strongly encouraged to discuss instead of revert.

Editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow 1RR or 0RR (see Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines § Bold). Editors may also voluntarily agree to abide by stricter reverting standards on other pages in response to problems in a particular area or as a general editing philosophy. For more details, see Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary.

Handling of edit-warring behaviors

What to do if you see edit-warring behavior

See also: Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution
If an edit war develops, participants should try to discuss the issue on the talk page and work things out.

It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page or seek help at appropriate venues. Other alternative approaches recommended within the community are suggested in § How to avoid an edit war.

If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{subst:uw-ewsoft}}, {{subst:uw-ew}}, or {{subst:uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page. Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down.

If several days have passed since the last edit action, consider doing nothing—our primary objective is to stop active edit wars.

If, despite such efforts, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then consider making a request for administrative involvement. The standard way to do this is to add a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

How to avoid an edit war

This section in a nutshell: Communication is the key to avoiding conflict. Follow Misplaced Pages:Editing policy § Talking and editing.Shortcut

Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag and keep in mind that there is no due-date. See also Misplaced Pages:Reverting § Avoid reverting during discussion.

Some 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, i.e., they revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, resulting in more frequent edit warring.

When discussion 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 comment. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. If these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.

Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without prompting), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars.

Administrator guidance

Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter, and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks. Where multiple editors engage in edit wars or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.

According to WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party)."

See also

Further reading

Misplaced Pages key policies and guidelines (?)
Content (?)
P
G
Conduct (?)
P
G
Deletion (?)
P
Enforcement (?)
P
Editing (?)
P
G
Style
Classification
Project content (?)
G
WMF (?)
P
Categories: