উইকিপিডিয়া:সম্পাদনা যুদ্ধ

(উইকিপিডিয়া:Three revert rule থেকে পুনর্নির্দেশিত)

উইকিপিডিয়ার পাতা ঐক্যমতের ভিত্তিতে পরিপূর্ণতা লাভ করে। ব্যবহারকারীরা পরবর্তীতে বর্নিত সম্পাদনা নীতির মাধ্যমে এবং একসাথে কাজ করে ঐকমতের পরিপূর্ণতা লাভের চেষ্টা করেন এবং সংঘাত নিরসনের চেষ্টা করেন এবং সাহায্য করেন যদি এইটি না কাজ করে। সম্পাদনা যুদ্ধ তখনই হয় যখন কোন স্বতন্ত্র অবদানকারী বা অবদানকারীরা, আলোচনার মাধ্যমে মত-পার্থক্য নিরসনের চেষ্টা না করে, বারংবার একে অপরের অবদান বাতিল করতে থাকেন। যে বা যারা সম্পাদনা যুদ্ধ-এ জড়িত, তাদের সম্পর্কে জানাতে প্রশাসকদের আলোচনাসভায় জানান।

A bright line exists on edit warring, known as the three-revert rule (3RR). If an administrator has not acted already by this point, then action is very likely, especially if a report is made to the noticeboard. Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR.

Edit warring activity is bad for the readers and editors of Wikipedia. Attempts to force one stance, or one version of an article, at the expense of another can lead to the loss of a neutral point of view, and create animosity between editors that reduces the possibility of consensus. Users who continue to edit war after proper education, warnings, and blocks on the matter degrade the community and the encyclopedia and may lose their editing privileges indefinitely.

The editing process


Wikipedia holds as its core approach, that an open system can produce quality, neutral encyclopedic content. This requires reasoned negotiation, patience,[১] and a strong community spirit, each of which is undercut by antisocial behavior like incivility and edit warring.

If differences arise and cannot be resolved, the correct response is to discuss and try to reach agreement, and then to seek dispute resolution or other neutral help from the wider editing community.

What edit warring is


Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. "Edit warriors" often fight aggressively, game the system, stack the discussion, or exhaust other users into dropping the issue, rather than seeking constructive, encyclopedia-related consensus. Such behaviors are never acceptable. They are disruptive, harmful, and unproductive, and often lead to external intervention by other users and administrators.

Typically a user who edit wars is ignoring editorial norms, reverting rather than taking due consideration of the points made by others. On Wikipedia, content should be written in accordance with policies and guidelines. Faced with disagreement, editors should discuss rather than fight. They should calmly seek third party input if the matter cannot be resolved, and should accept they cannot agree and seek dispute resolution rather than disrupt the article with edits they already know will be opposed. The fact that one user is "pushing an agenda" is not an excuse for another user to edit war.

Edit warring is different from bold, revert, discuss (BRD) which presumes even a major edit may be tried out, unless another editor objects to the point of reversion, at which point BRD is complete and editing transitions to discussion and consensus seeking.

What edit warring is not


In a number of cases, reverting or rejecting edits is necessary, including (but not limited to):

  • Reverting vandalism and edits by banned users 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)
  • Enforcing certain overriding policies. 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.

Undoing another person's edit is known as reverting (or reversion). Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason.

Especially, reverting is not to be used as a way to "ignore" or "refute" an editor with whom one happens to disagree, or to fight battles or make a point. Misuse of reversion in these ways may lead to administrator warnings or blocking.

Additionally, the use of automated or semi-automated tools is prohibited during a content dispute. Editors must not use tools such as Twinkle, Huggle or Rollback when in a content dispute.

The three-revert rule


The "three-revert rule" ("3RR") is a bright-line rule concerning blatant overuse of reverting, a common kind of edit war behavior. It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24-hour period for a first incident. 3RR draws a line where edit warring via reverts is clearly beyond a reasonable level and action will be taken if it has not already been. As such it does not apply in a few narrowly defined situations where there is no edit war (listed below).

Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached.

Application of 3RR


A "page" is any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A series of consecutive saved revert edits 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 indicate disruptive editing).

3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR.

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.

Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not edit warring will not breach the rule. Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly. The following actions are exceptions to the three-revert rule, and do not count as reverts under the rule's definition.

Exceptions by user type

  • Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). (Reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, so self-reverting will not breach the rule.)
  • Reverting edits to your own user space (as long as you are respecting the Wikipedia:User page guidelines and not restoring material covered by a 3RR content type exemption).[২]
  • Reverting actions performed by banned users.
Just as vandalism in a city damages property, vandalism of Wikipedia articles damages the quality of the encyclopedia.

Exceptions by content type

  • Obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive 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 have to revert vandalism repeatedly before administrators can respond.
  • Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
  • 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.
  • Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on 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.

However, even such actions may sometimes be controversial or considered edit warring. If you are claiming an exemption it is a good idea to make sure that there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains and justifies the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert; remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard.

Note that in the case of vandalism, blocking editors who have engaged in vandalism, or protecting the page in question, will often be preferable to simply reverting. Similarly, blocking or page protection will often be preferable in case of repeated addition of copyrighted material. Vandalism concerns (check the definition) may be reported at the Administrators' incidents noticeboard, the vandalism intervention noticeboard (for persistent vandals) or request page protection. (Note that page protection is not designed to protect Your Version, it is designed to end edit warring and encourage discussion of the issue.)

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 or both 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 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 polarised 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 behaviour, 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.

  1. See MeatBall:ReactLater.
  2. 3RR does not apply to your own userspace, but this does not give you the right to ignore Wikipedia:User page guidelines, and you may be blocked for repeatedly restoring material which violates them. This includes in particular material for which others may claim exemption from 3RR, including copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.

আরও দেখুন