Wikipedia:Edit warring

"WP:EW" redirects here. For To report editors who are edit warring, please see the Edit warring noticeboard, see WP:EW (disambiguation).

A severe edit war

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion.

Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus as to the right way to improve the encyclopedia. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned from editing.

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). This says that 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. Policy generally forbids edit warring, and editors who engage in an edit war are often blocked, whether or not the edit war does or does not involve any violations of 3RR.

What edit warring is

See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy

Wikipedia's core approach that an open system can produce good-quality encyclopedic content. However, situations will inevitably arise where editors have differing views about some aspect of a page's content. When this happens, editors are strongly encouraged to engage in civil discussion to reach a consensus, and not to try to force their own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting. It is the latter approach which is known as edit warring.

Not every potentially controversial edit, and not every revert, is deprecated as edit warring. The following situations should be noted:

• Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be tried out, as a way of finding out whether it is opposed, and of initiating discussion. If another editor has good reason to object to such an change, they may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle, and is not edit warring. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of unconstructive, back-and-forth edits.
• Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Note that repeated posting of blatant confirmed misinformation (such as "doctored" quotations) or repeated large scale removal of content is often considered vandalism, but in general merely editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes, are not necessarily considered vandalism. (See Types of vandalism and What is not vandalism.)
• Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal (possibly backed by administrative action) is the norm until it is fixed and policy-compliant.
• Reverting edits by banned users is not considered to be edit warring.

If reverting other editors' changes, be sure to indicate your reasons (unless the reason is obvious, as in the case of vandalism reversion). This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page. Reverting without giving good reasons is more likely to be perceived as combative. Remember that reverting "throws away" the work done by the other editor; consider working to improve on the other editor's text, or discussing it with them, rather than simply undoing their changes.

Remember that anti-vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used.

Sanctions for edit warring

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable (usually after warning) to be blocked from editing in order to prevent further disruption. While all edit warring behavior is liable to lead to such sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the "three-revert rule" which is very often applied as a reason for blocks. This rule is set out below.

The three-revert rule

The three-revert rule ("3RR") states:

A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space.

A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule:

• Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
• Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
• Reverting actions performed by banned users.
• Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
• Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
• Removal of content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are located, such as child pornography and pirated software.
• Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates Biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
• Considerable leeway is 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, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard.

The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time. The rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts count together.

Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.

Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

If an editor breaks the three-revert rule 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 appears to be genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake.

Handling of edit warring behaviors

What to do if you see edit warring behavior

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 over it. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and try to discuss the issue on the talk page, or approach appropriate venues for help. Other alternative approaches recommended within the community are suggested below.

If, despite trying, one or more users will not cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or will not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard 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 {{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.

How experienced editors avoid being dragged into edit wars

In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags 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 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.

A number of 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. Editors may wish to adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above; see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, and as a result edit warring is more frequent.

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 consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

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. A first case often involves a breach of the three-revert rule or edit warring behavior following past warnings, later blocks are more likely to be issued for continued edit warring behaviors in general. In cases where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is a common duration for a routine first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility when doing so. Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.

Administrator action is mainly intended to address edit wars actually in progress. An edit war that is clearly over and with no visible or foreseeable activity may be handled by warnings or (for repeated cases) by other administrator processes such as noticeboard discussion or protection. Re-offenders may also find themselves blocked for very recent edit warring; in this case not as prevention of the old war or retribution for past conduct, but as deterrence and forceful education to reduce the likelihood of future occurrence in the face of repeat behavior. (See: Blocking policy#Purpose and goal)

This policy, and the three-revert rule, are designed to prevent and limit edit warring. They are not an entitlement, nor an endorsement of reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule still receive blocks for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system in reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and will often take action solely due to disruptive or edit warring behaviors.

Administrators must often make a judgment call to identify edit warring when attempting to resolve disputes. In general, repeated reverts made without the support of prior consensus or without sufficient discussion are likely to be considered edit warring, as are other patterns of generally disruptive or obstructive behavior. The response is often influenced by whether a user appears to be deliberately trying to prevent others' editing, especially if it appears they are willfully doing so by gaming the system or through more calculated or egregious abuse, such as spacing out reverts in a slow edit war, inappropriately coordinating with other editors, misusing of multiple accounts, or repeatedly using reverts in a combative fashion.

See also

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars
• Wikipedia:Reverting
• Wikipedia:Consensus
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
• Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
• Wikipedia:Etiquette
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
• Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars
• Wikipedia:Page move war