Forum:Changes to the edit warring and rollback policies

Archived discussion

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new thread.

Forums: Index → Community discussions → Changes to the edit warring and rollback policies | Post

I'd like to suggest changes to our policies on edit warring and the use of rollback. I've been planning to make this discussion thread for ages, but procrastination held me back until I decided to just do it, before I decide to "Eh, I'll wait until tomorrow".

Edit warring

There should be some exceptions to edit warring; there are some cases where edits must absolutely be reverted. Situations where edit warring does not apply are: (Based on the edit war exemptions on Wikipedia)

• Reverting one's own actions (self-reverting)
• Reverting edits to pages in one's own user space, as long as they respect policy (see TSW:UPP) and the material is appropriate
• Reverting edits to one's own fanons (note that if all warring parties are listed as authors on the fanon page, normal edit warring rules should apply, as all authors on a fanon are expected to be able to collaborate and work out issues with discussion, not reverts)
• Reverting edits that are clearly vandalism or spam. See Wikipedia:Vandalism and Help:Spam.
• Reverting edits that contain material that is illegal under US Law, such as child pornography and pirated software.

Feel free to suggest changes to the above list

Rollback

Now here's the other thing I want to set straight: When is it appropriate to use rollback?

We already have the following list:

• To revert obvious vandalism and bad-faith edits, where the reason for reverting is obviously clear
• To revert edits in your own user space
• To revert your own edits (AKA self-reverting)

I want to expand the list to include:

• To revert edits made to fanons that you are an author of.
• To revert widespread edits made by an inexperienced editor or malfunctioning bot that are considered to be unhelpful to the wiki but made in good faith, provided that an explanation is posted at the user's talk page.

I'd also like to add that, should an editor misuse rollback persistently despite multiple warnings to stop should have their rollback privileges removed. If the user is an administrator, they may need to be desysopped to remove rollback.

Conclusion

So, what do you think about my proposed changes to the policies? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the discussion thread below, and feel free to suggest changes to my proposals.

--I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 02:01, November 19, 2015 (UTC)

ETA: An addition to the edit warring policy:

• Users are exempt from edit warring if they are restoring declined unblock review templates while the user is still blocked. On Wikipedia, declined unblock requests are kept on the blocked user's talk page in order to provide easy access to the reviewing administrator(s) decline reasons; the blocked user is not permitted to remove these declined requests until they are unblocked, or the block expires. The blocked user is still permitted to remove other messages freely (and should be exempt from edit warring; users should not continuously restore those messages; goes under "userspace" exemption).

—k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:17, December 8, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Regarding edit warring, I think the reason we don't have any listed exceptions to edit warring is because we don't have a definition of what edit warring is. The only thing close to a definition on TSW is the guideline that is linked to above. I would support adopting a more formal policy which prohibits edit warring, and if such a policy is adopted, it should rightly contain the exceptions you've included.

I also support the additions to Rollback guidelines. -- LiR ^{talk • blog • contribs} 05:05, November 19, 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about using Wikipedia's Three-revert rule as a general (but not set in stone or definitive) guideline as to what edit warring is. It is perfectly possible to edit war without coming close to breaking 3RR, though, and it may be considered edit warring if the user's actions indicate that they intend to keep reverting. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:53, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with LiR's above comment: a policy defining when a situation is an edit war would make things clearer and easier (although I have no idea how to define it), and the changes to rollback sound like good additions. Vpetmad (talk) 20:35, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

A rule change for edit warring is long overdue. I support the revisions for both proposed guidelines. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 04:24, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

Closing under unanimous consent

The few responses to this proposal are in favor of the policy amendments being put forward, and in favor of defining The Sims Wiki's own reversion rules. As policies should be supported by the community and be backed by community consensus, and whereas this consensus has been shown here in the affirmative towards said policy, but whereas there is not as of yet sufficient consensus to close this thread in the affirmative, I would like to propose closure under the Unanimous Consent rules.

I propose that we unanimously consent to: adopting the rollback rules as proposed, by adding those rules to The Sims Wiki:Rollback; adopting a formal edit-warring rule by amending the general policy page to add the following definition - An edit war occurs when two or more users within a short window of time make multiple edits to a page, with the result of those edits being that the same or similar information is repeatedly removed and re-added. ; and including in general policies the list of edit warring exceptions as listed in the proposal.

Under the UC rules, this discussion should remain open for at least another week to allow any dissent to approving the proposal as I've laid out. -- LiR ^{talk • blog • contribs} 14:51, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as there has been no opposition, this thread is closed and the points above adopted -- LiR ^{talk • blog • contribs} 01:30, March 19, 2016 (UTC)