Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Edit warring

In today's world, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Edit warring is an issue that has become increasingly relevant in society. Since its emergence, it has impacted different aspects of daily life, generating debates, controversies and significant transformations. Its influence extends to different areas, from the political to the cultural, and has managed to capture the attention of experts and citizens alike. Given the diversity of opinions and perspectives, it is crucial to analyze in detail and critically the role that Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Edit warring currently plays, as well as its possible implications for the future. That is why in this article we propose to exhaustively and objectively examine the different aspects related to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Edit warring, in order to offer a comprehensive vision that allows us to understand its importance and impact on contemporary society.

Shortcut

• WP:AN3WP:AN3

Please read before accusing someone of edit warring

Edit Warring (3RR) Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. 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. 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.

To request an examination of an editor who is suspected of edit warring visit the Administrator's Noticeboard Edit Warring page and follow the instructions there.

Shortcut

• WP:DRRWP:DRR

Main page: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Dispute resolution requests provides a central compilation and easy-access overview of noticeboards for dispute resolution, and details the various different methods used at each of the Wikipedia dispute resolution pages. Unsure which one to use? Check our guide to dispute resolution.

Article content All content issues should first be discussed at the talk page of the relevant article.

Third opinion Specialised noticeboards Requests for comment Dispute resolution noticeboard Request an outside opinion when there is a content dispute between only two users. Ask questions and request assistance from users familiar with the content policies and guidelines relevant to that noticeboard. Request input on a specific content issue from a broad number of uninvolved users. Have uninvolved volunteers facilitate a discussion about an ongoing content dispute.

User conduct All conduct issues should first be discussed at the talk page of the users involved.

Edit warring noticeboard Administrators' noticeboard of incidents Arbitration Enforcement Report editors who are repeatedly undoing others' edits to try to "win" a dispute. Request assistance from administrators and experienced editors regarding recent or ongoing misconduct by an editor. Request enforcement against a user who you feel is acting in breach of the remedies described in a closed arbitration case.

Advanced disputes

Arbitration Cases Apply to the Arbitration Committee for an examination and binding decision regarding a long-standing issue of misconduct after all other avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted.

See also

• Help:Simple guide to vandalism cleanup, for situations where an editor is clearly deliberately trying to harm Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, for situations where an editor is suspected of abusively using two or more Wikipedia accounts.