See Also:
The previous poll ("Revert wars considered harmful") and discussion below indicate that a large majority of the community are in favor of the guideline "do not revert the same page more than three times in the same day".
For the purposes of this proposed policy, since it is more rigid than the current guideline, the rule would be no user may revert 6 or more times the same page in one 24 hour period - these 6 reverts have to be to one page. This rule is not intended to grant an allowance of 5 reverts per user per day per article: reverts should be avoided.
The only exception to this rule will be in cases of clear political conflict; not content disputes, but covering up after a user who goes on a timely campaign of political activism, like the current case of User:Bird and her never-ending list of proxy IPs, sock puppets and allies with which she is circumventing a hard ban. Of course, assaults against User:bird began after Bird reverted pages only once.
Currently, when users engage in a revert war, sysops may decide to protect that page. A temporary page protection is supposed to allow the users to calm down and discuss the problem on the article's talk page. However, this prevents all users from editing the page in question.
This proposal is intended to be less agressive toward the user (as it does not prevent him entirely from editing wikipedia, at least talk pages are available) to avoid the risk of teaming up of a couple of users against another user.
Two options are proposed.
See Also:
The previous poll ("Revert wars considered harmful") and discussion below indicate that a large majority of the community are in favor of the guideline "do not revert the same page more than three times in the same day".
For the purposes of this proposed policy, since it is more rigid than the current guideline, the rule would be no user may revert 6 or more times the same page in one 24 hour period - these 6 reverts have to be to one page. This rule is not intended to grant an allowance of 5 reverts per user per day per article: reverts should be avoided.
The only exception to this rule will be in cases of clear political conflict; not content disputes, but covering up after a user who goes on a timely campaign of political activism, like the current case of User:Bird and her never-ending list of proxy IPs, sock puppets and allies with which she is circumventing a hard ban. Of course, assaults against User:bird began after Bird reverted pages only once.
Currently, when users engage in a revert war, sysops may decide to protect that page. A temporary page protection is supposed to allow the users to calm down and discuss the problem on the article's talk page. However, this prevents all users from editing the page in question.
This proposal is intended to be less agressive toward the user (as it does not prevent him entirely from editing wikipedia, at least talk pages are available) to avoid the risk of teaming up of a couple of users against another user.
Two options are proposed.