Forum:Introducing Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule: Difference between revisions

From The Sims Wiki, a collaborative database for The Sims series
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
imported>LostInRiverview
(Created page with "{{Forumheader|Community discussions}} ''Relocated from the Development Portal talk page'' ---- Due to recent occurrences on the wiki...")
 
imported>Lost Labyrinth
Line 11: Line 11:
==Discussion==
==Discussion==
I think putting something formally regarding this policy is a good idea, since we already use it as a guideline and enforce it. I'm not sure whether a separate policy would be best, or whether it should be added to [[TSW:GP|general policies]], but I support adding it ''somewhere.'' -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 21:26, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
I think putting something formally regarding this policy is a good idea, since we already use it as a guideline and enforce it. I'm not sure whether a separate policy would be best, or whether it should be added to [[TSW:GP|general policies]], but I support adding it ''somewhere.'' -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 21:26, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

We already have [[The Sims Wiki:Guidelines#Edit wars|a set of guidelines]] on what constitutes as edit warring. An issue I see with something like a "three revert rule" is that if someone is deliberately vandalising an article multiple times and one user is there to patrol, they could probably be seen as breaking the rule even though it was for the good of the wiki. I don't think an arbitrary value of edits and a "24 hour lockout period" would be necessary but I do think that "Guideline" on edit warring would be better off listed as a fully fledged policy, which it logically is. {{LabSig}} 21:29, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:29, 8 April 2013

Forums: IndexCommunity discussionsIntroducing Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule | Post

Relocated from the Development Portal talk page


Due to recent occurrences on the wiki, it has come to me to enquire as to whether we should borrow Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule, which states that An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period (the whole policy in detail is here).

I think, in order to ensure that edit wars do not go on for longer than is deemed appropriate, I suggest that we should introduce this policy to ensure that any users involved in an edit war will be dealt with in a quick and fair manner, such as those involved given a 24-hour block.

So what does everyone think? Do you think this is a good and effective policy to introduce? AsherÉire 'Sup? 20:10, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I think putting something formally regarding this policy is a good idea, since we already use it as a guideline and enforce it. I'm not sure whether a separate policy would be best, or whether it should be added to general policies, but I support adding it somewhere. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 21:26, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

We already have a set of guidelines on what constitutes as edit warring. An issue I see with something like a "three revert rule" is that if someone is deliberately vandalising an article multiple times and one user is there to patrol, they could probably be seen as breaking the rule even though it was for the good of the wiki. I don't think an arbitrary value of edits and a "24 hour lockout period" would be necessary but I do think that "Guideline" on edit warring would be better off listed as a fully fledged policy, which it logically is. Lost Labyrinth (c)(b) 21:29, April 8, 2013 (UTC)