Edit war

Two main usages of the term edit war have emerged within Wikipedia. Some people consider that an edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version one another's edits to an article. Others subscribe to a much broader definition, encompassing any situation in which two or more authors repeatedly edit an article extensively. Subscribers to the second definition consider the first definition to be a ''revert duel,'' a special case of an edit war. This second usage is harder to identify clearly, and individuals sometimes disagree on whether a particular editing episode constitutes edit warfare. Edit wars may have many motivations. Such motivations may include, but are not limited to: politics, beliefs, way too much time on one's hands, and simple dislike of a user. Regardless of whether or not the activity should properly be called an "edit war," most users consider sustained episodes of animated cut-and-thrust editing to be undesirable, and if they observe it happening and cannot talk the parties out of it or encourage them to enter the wikipedia:dispute resolution process, they may Wikipedia:Requests for page protection of the article to enforce a Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot period. Users who persist in this behavior may be subject to, in severe cases, Wikipedia:arbitration. "Reversion wars" between two competing individuals are against Wikipedia's spirit, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in Wikipedia:Bans and blocks being implemented due to violations of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Instead of performing a straight revert, look for ways to compromise, or alternative ways of saying the same thing—while such edits take more time and thought than another unthinking revert, they are far more likely to result in a mutually satisfactory article. In the case of newcomers who are genuinely making poor edits, being reverted by two or more people demonstrates that the reversions are not a one man crusade, but something closer to a consensus. High-frequency reversion wars make the version history less useful, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists. Low-frequency reversion wars do not cause the community as many problems, though they still cause some. Experience has shown that waiting an hour or more between reverts to vandalism makes continued vandalism less likely. In most cases the troublemaker will lose interest and leave. Many users recommend spacing out your reversions to one per day. Benefits are: *The other person might see the light of reason. *You might realize that the other person was right! *Others can easily step in and try to help. See, for example, MeatBall:DefendEachOther *A day is much easier to apply than "any 24-hour period." By limiting yourself to one revert per day, you avoid the risk of accidentally reverting four times in a 24-hour period. ==See also== *Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club *Meta:Edit wars *Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever *Wikipedia:Deletion war *Wikipedia:Three revert rule *Wikipedia:Edit conflicts *Wikipedia:Wikiquette Wikipedia help

Edit war

#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Edit war

Edit war

== Article over "Edit wars" needed? == Wouldn't it be a good idea to have an Wikipedia:Edit war article, of course redirected from Edit war and Edit wars, which could be used when warning newbies for engaging in such activities?
--User:Ruhrjung 16:04, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC) : In general edit wars tend to break out just as frequently between oldbies (*looks pointedly at mirror*) as newbies. I think our advice on wikipedia:staying cool when the editing gets hot is useful here, though it could be improved. User:MyRedDice 18:51, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC) I plan to merge this with Wikipedia:Current_disputes_over_articles. User:MyRedDice 14:10, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC) :Not sure I agree with this. This page should be about edit wars in general; the other page should be about particular disputes, which would include particular edit wars. User:GrahamN 23:44, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- ''Continuation of a discussion from Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy'' Why do people worry so much about edit wars? Why does it matter if for a while visitors to the site find that an article is oscillating between different wording? It seems to me that edit wars (no matter how protracted) will always fizzle out eventually. The "edit warriors" get frustrated and bored and realise they ''have'' to find a compromise. To me, this a very good thing indeed, not only for Wikipedia but for the edit warriors themselves. [I consider that my conflicts with RK and others when I was new here have taught me something about ''life'']. In fact I would go further, and say that edit wars ''that are allowed to run their course and come to a natural resolution agreed by all warring parties'' are the very best thing about this place. They lead to better articles than would be possible by any other method. They are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. They are its glory. User:GrahamN 21:47, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC) :I'd be interested in seeing a wiki page in which the process you describe above has occurred. (I doubt you'll find one on Wikipedia, because edit wars aren't allowed to run their course here as a matter of policy, although maybe there's a "natural" edit war that slipped through the cracks.) One example would prove that the process you describe above is possible, and that would be very interesting. It would take more evidence to convince me that a majority of edit wars follow the same path, though. -- User:Cyan 21:57, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC) The apartheid article springs to mind. We eventually came to an accomodation, after a great deal of heated discussion on the Talk page. But the discussion only happened because the warring parties (I was one) came to realise the futility of continuing our edit war. People have to come to this realisation ''themselves'' - you can't force them to see it. You just make them resentful and convinced that the administrators are a sinister cabal with a mission to suppress their point of view. I wonder what you think would happen if admininstrators failed to step in and halt an edit war? Do you think the protagonists would still be sitting at their computers reverting and re-reverting twenty years later? Or even a week later? Of ''course'' not! They ''must'' eventually get bored and frustrated and realise that they ''have'' to compromise. There is no other way out. That is the glory of it! And you haven't explained where the ''harm'' could possibly be. Why ''does'' it matter if, for a while, visitors to the site find that a particular article is in a state of flux? User:GrahamN 23:30, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC) :But wikipedia is an encyclop�dia. Its credibility rests on the reliability and objectivity of articles, not on how much someone may 'grow' as a person from having a row with someone else. Edit wars are all very well, but it seems likely that they drive contributors away, drive editors away, and drive potential readers away, thus damaging Wikipedia. User:Jtdirl 00:16, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC) ''User:Cyan, revert if required>'' User:Cyan 00:40, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC) I take your point, JT [I've seen others call you "James". May I call you that?]. In fact I agree with almost everything you said in the earlier version of your post before it was bowdlerised [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy&diff=1674287&oldid=1674220]. If you want to have fun, go to a funfair. If you want to socialise, go to a pub. Time spent here should be spent on nothing other than the quest to create the greatest encyclopaedia there has ever been. We absolutely agree on that. It's nice to find some common ground at last :-) We just disagree on the best way to do it. You said ''Edit wars are all very well, but if they drive contributors away, drive editors away, drive potential readers away then however much ''you'' may get 'something' from them, wikipedia comes first, before you, me, Cyan, RK, Mav or anyone else.'' I can almost agree with this too, but not quite. I certainly agree with the sentiment, but I think there are some subtleties you may have missed. ''Firstly'', I don't believe that the line between the benefits to individuals and the benefits to wikipedia is as sharp as you paint it. Editing Wikipedia is a particular kind of skill, which has to be learned. In my opinion, and experience, being involved in an edit war is an excellent first lesson. ''Secondly'', although it's certanly true that edit wars are offputting to contributors, it seems to me that authoritarian moves by administrators are even more offputting. At least in an edit war, a contributor feels that their fate is in their own hands. Even if they leave in frustration, there could always be the thought that they might try again, wording the article in a slightly different way. After a day or two they may return to try it. And then before long, our newcomer has learned the vital first lesson of edit warfare: simple reversion is (usually) pointless - you have to modify the words a little each time, to try to make them more acceptable to your adversary, while not losing the crux of what it is you are trying to convey. By contrast, if the page you are working on is suddenly protected, and if you are threatened with drastic measures unless you cease hostilities forthwith, then you are made to feel powerless, and, naturally, resentful. If that happens to a newcomer it is easy for them to get the (presumably incorrect) impression that this place is run by a cabal of technologically empowered zealots determined to suppress all viewpoints but their own. This impression is far more offputting than the fiercest edit war could ever be. I speak from experience. How many times have you heard this "cabal" argument given as a reason for quitting wikipedia? I've heard it lots of times, and in frustration I've said something very similar myself. On the other hand, how many times have you heard people say that they are leaving because they can't stand the edit wars? Personally, I can't remember hearing that even once. ''Thirdly'', you say that edit wars drive potential readers away. I still can't see how that could happen, but even if it did, the problem must be far outweighed by the long-term benefit to Wikipedia of having the kinds of microscopically fair-minded articles that emerge from the heat of wars between editors who hold utterly opposing world-views. User:GrahamN 03:22, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC) >>''How many times have you heard this "cabal" argument given as a reason for quitting wikipedia'' :I have, and most especially in regard to any "Politically-incorrect" articles that are still NPOV like "Cosmotheism". User:Paul Vogel/24.45.99.191 17:18, 16 Feb 2004 :Never. User:Angela >>''how many times have you heard people say that they are leaving because they can't stand the edit wars'' :Lots. User:Angela My edit-equilibrium example is BBC, where the "futility of war" resulted in a compromise both sides could live with. But it required the participants have some measure of respect for the process and participants. That's not a luxury that always exists, but I still think it's the best "feature" of Wikipedia. Perhaps there should be a WikiCreed that we could have people recite when these wars get heated. User:Fuzheado 01:04, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC) == Does this article need to be NPOV == Does this page need to be NPOV, or is this article intented to try and stop people from having edit wars in the first place? If it's treated like any normal Wikipedia article, it should provide a balanced account of why some people choose to enter edit wars, and why they could be good. -- User:Mattworld 23:54, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC) :I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. All articles should be NPOV. Why do you think this one might be different? User:GrahamN ::Because it's in the Wikipedia: namespace. Would that make a difference? -- User:Mattworld 00:07, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC) ::Is Wikipedia:NPOV NPOV? I don't think so. Pages in the Wikipedia namespace express a common ideology; they prescribe a Wikipedia culture founded in the early days. They aren't intended to be merely informational. -- User:Tim Starling 00:12, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC) :An interesting point. I'm going to have to think about this a bit more deeply. User:GrahamN 00:52, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC) :::It's not an article, so I don't believe it needs to be NPOV. However, a "balanced account of why some people choose to enter edit wars" would be interesting. :) User:Angela == New policy on edit conflicts == Above, someone writes with regards to wikipedia:revert: "This is not an official policy and I am against it". Sie is quite correct. However, one example of an official policy is the new text on Wikipedia:Edit conflicts, which, by the powers vested in me by the Wikipedia meta:power structure I hereby declare official, having been standard practice for several years, and amply illustrated by a range of precedents over the past years. Making this common practice universal will significantly reduce longterm conflict, while improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Further, it provides solid guidance to newcomers to help them cope with the vagaries of Wikipedia's edit conflict system. User:MyRedDice 23:34, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)~ ==Suggestions== In response to comments made at the village pump, User:Daniel Quinlan proposed the following on Dec 6 2003: :* Allow specific users to be blocked from editing a page. :* Allow alternate versions of very very contentious articles, then use Approval voting to select one. == Most unlikely edit war? == (from the village pump) In my year watching Wikipedia I thought I'd seen all variations of edit wars - at religion articles, science/pseudoscience articles, history/politics articles, etc. - but for the last day or so an edit war has been raging at, of all things, Curse of the Bambino! (This is a jokey reference to the inability of Boston's baseball team to win a title.) That's like watching a fistfight over whether Twinkies are tastier than Ho-Hos (if I may be forgiven a USA-centric junk-food joke) I'm curious: Has anybody else encountered a real, mean-spirited, you-revert-me-so-I-revert-you edit war over a less likely topic? User:DavidWBrooks 15:38, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I liked the one about wether Leland Stanford need a stub message. User:Gentgeen 15:45, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::For the record, the activity you are referring to is not an edit war over content, but a thwarting of recurring vandals. User:Kingturtle 15:46, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Well it amused me to see Wik and Anthony squabbling on WWJD yesterday, not over religion, but the placement of hyphens and the correct formatting of a South Park reference. The irony. User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 17:07, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::IIRC, the first edit war I ever witnessed was at Talk:List of famous Canadians -- of course, that was User:DW, and he has since been banned... User:TUF-KAT :One of the worst I can remember was a very heated edit war on whether presidents should be mentioned on a page first as John F. Kennedy or as John F. Kennedy. I sometimes get the idea half of our edit wars are about that kind of trivialities. Save your anger for the real cases, guys! User:Andre Engels 19:58, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) See wikipedia:pedantry dispute. :) User:MyRedDice 20:08, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) if you want to see edit wars and vadalism and the like, plus some playing the victim, follow user dreamguy's "exploits" through out the encyclopdia... his attitude seems to irk a lot of people. User:Gabrielsimon 00:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Edit and Revert wars getting out of hand== (from the village pump) I propose that a new policy be implemented to deal with the short-term impact of edit and revert wars. The protecting pages does not seem to work as the conflict soon spreads to other pages, and we can't be protecting all the pages. I am ''almost'' inclined to support a policy whereby sysops are allowed to temp-ban participants until the Mediation/Arbitration committees are done reviewing the issue. This is a pessimistic rather than optimistic approach to doing things, but this constant flux of warring does not look good. Ideas, opinions, solutions? I think we need to have a discussion on this, and I don't trust the mailing lists for this issue which concerns many more Wikipedians than participate there. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 17:12, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC) :I had a similar idea Dori, more watered-down though. It would be to 24-hour block both participants of an ongoing edit war, without immediate resort to the committee. However a history of being blocked numerous times could be used as rationale for taking it to committee later on. (And it would of course entail remembering to unblock after 24 hours.) - User:Hephaestos|User talk:Hephaestos 17:28, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Re: unblocking. Couldn't a cron job be set up which would check a file and unblock any users found there? --User:WormRunner 17:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::I think it would probably be an easy code change to have blocks of user handles expire automatically after 24 hours as blocks on IPs do now. I'm not sure what other ramifications that would have in regard to currently-standing long-term bans though. - User:Hephaestos|User talk:Hephaestos 17:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) :My first reaction to this is that the mediation and arbitration committees might quickly find themselves overburdened. I also don't like giving sysops the leave to suspend users in edit wars for extended periods of time, because often, the folks provide valuable contributions elsewhere. Bottom line, I don't like banning as a first defense because there's too much ambiguity. Perhaps the solution is to create an "probationary" status for users who become embroiled in edit wars... to say, you can continue to edit, but you're on notice, and if you get involved in an edit/revert war in the next, say... week, that's an automatic 30-day ban. - User:Seth Ilys 17:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) This sounds like a good idea. (temporarily banning a participant in an edit war.) I don't see any reason why a user would get into an edit war. If two users have different opinions over an issue, why dont they just discuss it. User:SennheiserUser talk:Sennheiser 18:22, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Some users (User:Wik, to name one) refuse to discuss something, and will continue reverting anything they do not like, violating the three reverts rule. Just banning someone who finds himself in an edit war is not a good idea, there should be some checking as to what each participant is doing. If one is doing his best to add or edit information, and the other is just reverting, I think it's rather obvious who if anyone should be banned. User:DarkelfUser talk:Darkelf 18:44, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Yes, I agree. I think that users who create problems in articles by continually reverting, should at least be looked into by the arbitration comittee with the possibility of its deciding to ban the user, regardless of whether or not the problem user makes a constructive edit once and a while, or even the majority of the time. User:SennheiserUser talk:Sennheiser 18:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) :I am not saying that sysops should be able to block people indefinitely. Only for a short period until the issue is resolved. It's true that often one side is to blame, and the other side is trying to fix things. The problem is that this cannot be easily discerned objectively. It would be sufficient to tag the article with one of the neutrality or factualy disclaimers. The issue can then be studied and resolved through mediation/arbitration without a clog of reversions. If people are fearful that they will be blocked, they will be less likely to to get involved in the edit warring. If someone takes advantage of this void, making POV edits, they will be taken care of by the committees. In the short time, articles will be in a bad shape, and that is a drawback. Perhaps, if a person renders several articles in a state of near-reversion, they could be temp-blocked too. So for example someone could post on the talk page saying, I would be reverting this except for the temp-block policy, and if different editors, post the same messages about the same editors this way, that editor can be identified as a trouble-maker and temp blocked. Or we could have straw polls to temp-block users until mediation/arbitration has decided. I just think we need a speedier way to resolve things than mediation/arbitration, and I don't like revert/edit wars. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 19:11, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC) ::One problem with that is, sometimes it is ''quite'' easy to determine who is right and who is wrong: look at the numerous edit wars just today between User:Snoyes and User:65.125.10.66; the latter's edits -- to white supremacy, monism, cosmotheism, National Alliance, etc. -- were nothing but POV and vandalism, and since he thought anyone who disagreed with him was pushing "Marxist-PC propaganda", discussion would not have been fruitful. --User:MirvUser talk:Mirv 19:23, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) On the contrary, the only one that "refuses" to uphold the NPOV is Mirv, who always upholds only the "quite easy" and false "Politically Correct" POV. Vandalism is NOT adding relevant links and information to articles or editing for NPOV, which users like Mirv, Snoyes, etc. ad nauseum, a cabal of liars and hypocrites, have often done to ban or censor the NPOV article that I wrote here: "Cosmotheism is a religion which positively asserts that there is a internal purpose in life and in cosmos, and there is an essential unity, or consciousness that binds all living beings and all of the inorganic cosmos, as one. by User:Snoyes 17:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) Clear-cut "vandalism" is not allowing for the NPOV to be made within articles, and that is exactly what JIMBO wanted to avoid: ANY Marxist-PC CABAL of dogmatic CENSORS!!! Best regards, Paul Vogel http://www.cosmotheism.net :::I am not discussing cases of clear-cut vandalism here. There already is a policy for that here: Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism#Blocking_vandals. I am talking about users that also make useful edits, and whose contributions are not clear cases of vandalism. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 19:34, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC) :what is the problem with users doing the same thing without the proposed temporary ban policy? I think that editors should be held responsible for any reversion wars that they engage in. User:SennheiserUser talk:Sennheiser 19:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) I fully endorse a policy of 24 hour blocks on anybody who breaks the 3 revert rule of thumb. IMO edit wars become a form of vandalism after 3 reverts per user. Users who are in the right are very often joined by other users - each of whom has three reverts to blow. Users who are working against consensus will quickly get temp banned. Users who get temp banned often enough should have an RfC page created on them and they should enter into Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Hopefully they will reform, if they don't then the arbitration committee (who I happen to be a member of) will impose more drastic remedies. Disclaimer: This is all my opinion and not an official statement by the committee. --User:Maveric149 10:51, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) : So mav, are you going to "vote" on the talk page of wikipedia:revert? :) User:MyRedDice ::I didn't know there was a poll. Done. --mav ==Edit wars== Edit wars II and (as proposed below) III. How to avoid them ?
It seems that phase two of the iridology page edit wars will rage again
The declaration of war reads like this:
::Well, folks, it look like irismeister is confident he's bored everybody to tears with a gazillion tiny legitimate edits, and is back to turning this article into an advocacy piece through a gazillion POV edits. It'll soon be time to get to work ... again. User:DavidWBrooks 16:27, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::I knew it wouldn't be long! I'm on dial up at the moment which is why I've been a bit quiet. I'm back on it tomorrow though. i notice that he is trying to inser the iris-ward link again. To irismeister - '''I ''will not'' allow you to insert bullshit''' into the page (stress added). I will not allow you to insert links to iris-ward. I don't care how much you harrass me, i don't care how much you follow me around wikipedia. I don't care how many compliants you make about me. Wikipedia will survive the likes of you - I will see to it that it does.User:Theresa knott 19:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My question is how to bring calm and serenity in David and Theresa, how to protect information, how to encourage them to always resort to documents in the talk page and (gasp) for myself - how to ignore the police alert attitude as put in evidence above outside the village pump? TIA - User:Irismeister 19:52, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC) ::And I suggest that first people read through the archived talk on talk:Iridology (always a good idea before editing a page on a controversial subject, of course). User:Fabiform | User talk:Fabiform 21:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::: And with my salute, I second that, as the unexpected voice of reason :-) Will add that more well-documented material has been carefully moved [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irismeister#Allegations_not_documented here] in order to escape information block (sadly the page is again protected, in the absence of edit wars.) Editor irismeister is again subject of a smearing campaign in a visible effort to silence him or his contributed information. Irismeister makes everybody sure that he will NEVER talk characters of fellow editors or EVER indulge into time-losing arbitrations and stuff. The issue here is ISSUES not CHARACTERS, complete with their attempted assasination. More information on updated Wiki policies [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump#Wikipedia_is_not_a_national_encyclopedia here] Sincerely, User:Irismeister 23:29, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC) ---- ==EditWar.com== To 213.84.6.203, who said in an edit summary "''I really don't understand why this external link was removed''": I suspect Maveric149 could see no direct relevance to this article. I just took a quick look at the site in question, [http://editwar.com EditWar.com], which seems to be a new wiki someone has set up in the last few days. I have to say other than its title, its relevance to this article isn't immediately obvious to me either. Please explain. User:GrahamN 23:35, 3 May 2004 (UTC) == Grammar war == An anonymous user, while making other less objectionable edits, added the following to the bottom of the page: :Note: "edit" is a noun. The grammatically correct form of this would be an "editing war," not an "edit war." For one thing, I consider this to be something that doesn't belong on the page, being aimed more at the term itself than what it means. For another thing, I consider the assertion itself to be inaccurate, and based on a particular view of English grammar that I don't believe everyone agrees with. User:Alfvaen 06:02, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) == Question about edit/revert war policy == Hello, I was wondering if edit/revert wars are allowed in the sandbox. Thank you, User:152.13.128.72 23:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Correction: I was somehow logged out without realizing it. Here is my signature: User:Y0u 23:43, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:
E
EA | EB | EC | ED | EF | EG | EH | EI | EJ | EK | EL | EM | EN | EO | EP | ER | ES | ET | EU | EW | EX | EY | EZ |

Words begining with Edit_war:

Edit_war
Edit_war
Edit_war
Edit_warring
Edit_wars
Edit_wars
Edit_wars_in_progress
Edit_wars_in_progress
Edit_war_in_progress