Wikipedia:Edit wars

All you want to know about Wikipedia:Edit wars

This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page.
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.

An edit war occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area. Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing. Attempts to win disputes through brute force undermine 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. Our neutral point of view requires us to document all significant views proportionally. An edit war opposes this, with two sides each fighting to make their version the only one.

Contents

What is edit warring?

Edit warring is not necessarily any single action; instead, it is any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes. Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

The most common measure of edit warring is the three-revert rule, often abbreviated 3RR. The three-revert rule usefully measures edit warring, as it posits that surpassing three reverts on any one page in under 24 hours is edit warring. While nobody should interpret the three-revert rule blindly, reaching this threshold strongly signals that serious misconduct is afoot. The 3RR metric is not an exemption for conduct that stays under the threshold. For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits.

Edit warring features a confrontational attitude. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism.

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

What is wrong with edit warring?

Edit warring is an unproductive, repeated, combative reversion of others' edits. Wikipedia holds that an open system can produce quality, neutral encyclopedic content. This requires reasoned negotiation, patience, and a strong community spirit, each of which is undercut by antisocial behavior like incivility and edit warring. A content revert intentionally reverses changes made in good faith by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute; it is not to be taken lightly. Editors who edit war after proper education, warnings, and blocks on the matter degrade the community and the encyclopedia, and may lose their editing privileges indefinitely.

Enforcement

First, always attempt to inform users, especially new users, of Wikipedia's policies and practices, and the problems with their editing approach. If other users observe such an ongoing exchange and cannot "talk down" the involved parties, or encourage them to enter the dispute resolution process, uninvolved administrators may either block the involved offenders for a period of time or protect the affected page(s). Protection is useful when the involved parties will work to resolve the conflict. Blocks occur when there is evidence that users cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior. Repeat offenders commonly face escalating blocks, and decreasing latitude for uncooperative behavior. In severe cases of abuse, warring parties who persist in punitive editing may warrant Arbitration. If long term incorrigible edit warriors do not lose their edit warring interests and leave on their own, Wikipedia eventually bans them or prevents them from editing or reverting in their areas of conflict.

Alternatives

Editors with combative mindsets should only revert when necessary. Before making multiple reverts, discuss the disputed changes on the other editor's user talk page or yours, and 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 getting 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

Related policies

Related guidelines

Other

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war"

No comments have been added.



Your name:

City:

Country:

Your comments:

Security check *
(Please enter the number into adjoining box)

 

  • Ads

           
eXTReMe Tracker