Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gurch (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 25 November 2008 (meh, none of this needs to be in a policy. essay, perhaps.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 WP:EW WP:EDITWAR WP:WAR

This page in a nutshell: If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions.

To report edit warring, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Edit warring is the persistent reversion by one party of actions by another party. Such actions are not limited in scope to the editing of pages. It is often manifested as the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

Edit warring is a behaviour, rather than a simple measure of the number of reversions. It causes problems for both readers and other contributors, 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. For these reasons, contributors should not engage in edit wars, but should instead resolve disagreements through discussion, consensus-building and ultimately dispute resolution. Administrators may block contributors in reponse to persistent edit warring, to prevent further disruption.

The three-revert rule

The three-revert rule is a rule used to facilitate the prevention of edit warring. It introduces a limit, beyond which actions are considered disruptive. It is not an entitlement to actions below that limit, nor is it a minimum threshold for actions to be considered edit warring.

The three-revert rule states that contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances (see below). A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A group of consecutive reverts 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 nevertheless indicate edit warring).

The following actions are generally not considered reversion for the purposes of the three-revert rule, but may still be controversial. Consider them to be narrowly defined.

• Reverting your own actions.
• Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding bad 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 find reversion unavoidable 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 links to content that is clearly illegal, 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. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
• Reverting edits to your own user space, provided that doing so does not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.

Situations involving administrative actions

Edit wars between administrators involving things available only to them, such as blocking of users and deleting of pages, are sometimes called wheel wars. Such an occurence is of course more serious than an edit war between non-administrators, as the potential for problems is greater, and is a misuse of the position of trust in which its participants have been placed.

Administrators should not repeat an administrative action in the presence of opposition from another administrator, or continue a chain of administrative reversals, without discussion.

Sanctions in response to instances of wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to permanent removal of administrative permissions, even for first time incidents.

Administrators should deal with disagreements in the same manner as any other contributor, seeking dispute resolution if necessary. Administrators uncertain about the correct course of action should seek input at the administrators' noticeboard.

Dealing with edit warring

New or inexperienced users engaging in edit warring should first be informed of Misplaced Pages's policies and practices, and the problems with their editing approach. More experienced contributors should be reminded of the project's behavioural standards and encouraged to seek dispute resolution should discussion be insufficient to resolve the issue.

In the event that this fails, uninvolved administrators may block involved contributors, or temporarily protect affected pages. Protection is useful when the involved parties will work to resolve the conflict; blocks should be used in situations where users fail to moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring. Edit warring may be reported to administrators at the edit warring noticeboard.

In exceptional cases, persistent edit warring may, as with other abuse, lead to a ban or other additional sanctions, possibly through an arbitration case.

Alternatives

Editors with combative mindsets should only revert when necessary. Before making multiple reverts, discuss the disputed changes on the article talk page or on the other editor's user talk page or yours. Remember that it is easy to misunderstand intentions and overestimate others' aggression on the Internet. Believing that an adversary is "wrong", "POV pushing" or "uncooperative" never excuses edit warring.

Bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider 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.

When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.

See also

• Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles
• Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry
• Misplaced Pages:Etiquette
• Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing
• Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing

• Misplaced Pages policies
• Misplaced Pages conduct policy