Wikipedia:Policypedia/Edit warring

Related Pages

Arbcom precedent

Edit warring / the three-revert rule

Statement(s) of principle

Users are expected to avoid edit wars and to respect the three-revert rule.
Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.
The three revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.
Editors are expected to avoid edit wars and to respect the three revert rule consulting with one another on talk pages in a courteous manner regarding the content of articles.
While the content of articles is the province of Wikipedia editors, a number of Wikipedia policies relate to content in peripheral ways, for example, it is desirable to limit reversions and to provide adequate references for material included in articles. See Reversions, Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability
Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule.
The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policy is intended to include both absolute reverts (that is, where versions differ not at all) as well as edits to versions that are only very slightly different).
Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again, whilst not expressly forbidden, is in bad faith and against the spirit of policy, and a violation of Wikiquette.
Wikipedia editors may not revert an article more than three times in a 24 hour period. This rule is based on individual users, not on a group of users who are reverting the same material (CheeseDream's "tag team" concept).
Users must follow the three-revert rule; Articles may not be reverted more than three times in a 24 hours period except for simple vandalism.
When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.
The Wiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. Should disputes arise editors are expected to engage in research, discussion with other users, and make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.
A Wikipedia user may revert an article a maximum of 3 times during any 24 hour period
While a user may have more than one account and edit without logging in they may not use a combination of their accounts to evade the three revert rule.
Although it is not made explicit on wikipedia:revert, a review of Wikipedia policies such as wikipedia:staying cool and wikipedia:dispute resolution, together with common practice and community expectations, strongly suggests that "When reverting, explain your reasons for doing so" is a longstanding de facto Wikipdia policy.

Previous penalties relating to principle

In cases of edit warring, revert limitations are applied whereupon the Wikipedia:three-revert rule is reduced to two, one, or even zero reverts with similar penalties. Point-of-view editing (see #Neutral point of view (and associated principles)) is usually seen as a cause of this.

Cases involving this principle

Loophole

There's a certain loophole around 3RR, one of its greatest weaknesses, and that is the clock. Under 3RR, if your 4th revert is 24 hours and one minute after your first, it technically doesn't count, even that it's definitely in the spirit of 3RR. Many users just "cash in" their 3 reverts per day and then go to sleep and revert another few times. 3RR is good in theory, but it needs a lot of work.