Forum:Edit warring prevention policy

Index → Panopticon → Edit warring prevention policy

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

I think it is time that the wikia created a new policy for edit warring that has been recently plaguing this wikia. I propose the following policy to prevent constant edit revertion that swamps the activity page:

Once a user's edit is reverted and a reason has been provided, then the topic must be discussed and voted for on the talk page instead of a big revertion war. Those who do not follow this could then face blocking after a warning from an admin.

Thoughts? --Revanvolatrelundar 15:26, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Generally behind you on this. Think something like Wikipedia's 3-revert-rule makes sense. I think it's a bit harsh to say that edit warring is present after just one reversion. Somewhere in the 3-5 range is clear evidence of a "war". And there does have to be a time limit on it. If you revert something I do, but I don't notice until a week later, it would hardly be a "war" for me to revert your reversion then. A time frame of anywhere between 12 and 72 hours seems a fair enough suggestion of a "war". So a good, basic rule would run along the lines of

If you revert an article [3 to 5 times] within [12 to 72 hours] then you will be blocked for [a period of time, depending on the number of offenses] to cool down a bit. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 15:44, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Done Tardis:Editing policy, I've also updated bits of the Tardis:Protection policy and Tardis:Blocking policy.

I disagree on the vote, it should be discussed and consensus reached, voting while it solves an immediate problem doesn't stop a similar issue coming up in the future, by working through the issue we can better improve the wiki.

I'd also encourage, when considering policy like this to flip it around and imagine it being applied to you, a lot of the time editors who become involved in edit wars think their point is the best way something can be written. Also blocking a user means that a user can only edit their own talk page (preventing them from engaging in any discussion concerning the edit war). For this reason depending on the veracity of the edit war the page itself may be fully protected, rather than blocking (also keep in mind that while an edit war may break out on one page a user's other contributions may be perfectly fine). Or alternatively all parties involved will be blocked for 2 hours+ to let tempers cool. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:46, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, TD: I was suggesting that you choose a value between 3 and 5, and a value between 12 and 72, not that you leave it as an ambiguous range. There needs to be an actual number, I think, otherwise people will be wondering why one time they did 4 reverts and nobody cared, but on another occasion they were blocked after just 3. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:29, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Ah...righty.

Splitting the difference it's 4 times in 36 hours. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:37, January 8, 2011 (UTC)