Forum:Amendment to SW:1RV
There has been yet another dispute over how edit warring should be managed. While the user in question had originally written the current reform for the policy which we now use, there are obviously still some inherent flaws. Therefore, I propose the following amendment to the policy:
- When an edit war occurs, the article should be reverted to its original state until a discussion about the dispute is made and a consensus is reached.
I feel this amendment will solve two problems - it eliminates the possibility of bias anytime an administrator is involved in an edit war (yes, I know we have this but that doesn't necessarily ease minds), and for the case of someone who is trying to change an article, it means they do not automatically get their way on the occasions that a consensus discussion does not take place. This ultimately will help increase fairness across any edit war and any disputed changes don't get put in place unless the community agrees that they should be. Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 17:39, February 23, 2021 (EST)
Support, as nom. Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 17:39, February 23, 2021 (EST) Redacted Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 20:19, February 25, 2021 (EST)
- Unnecessary, the article should just be left as is while the dispute is settled barring extreme cases, and as stated in the discord, what is the "original version" isn't clear cut, such as in the common scenario where someone makes a major edit and them someone else makes a fuss over a minor part of the edit. This is also trying to "solve" a "problem" that isn't there, just don't revert other people's reverts and go to the talk page no matter how minor one thinks the edit is. Omega Tyrant 17:58, February 23, 2021 (EST)
- Oppose, what constitutes as the "original version" is unclear, as most edit wars happen over part of an edit rather than the whole edit. In some cases it can escalate the issue when decideding what would be the original version. In most circumstances, leaving the article alone and discussing it in the talk page is the better way to go. Omegα Toαd, the Toαd Wαrrior. (BUP) 18:10, February 23, 2021 (EST)
- Oppose. Don't really see a need for this; I believe the policy is good as it is. If people can't follow it, that's on them. Not to mention Alex himself did three reverts. (talk) 20:57, February 23, 2021 (EST)
Doesn't 1RV already state exactly what you're proposing?:
- (...) if a user reverts an edit, one should not revert their revert, and instead should use the article's talk page to dispute the reversion (...)
Essentially, one shouldn't revert the edit that changes the page back to its original state without discussion. I feel it'd be much more effective to simply emphasize that "only revert once" means "the page should only be reverted once" and not "each user involved gets to revert the page once", which in my view is what causes most of the confusion around the policy and cases of users getting away with violating it. Nokii — 18:36, February 23, 2021 (EST)
- Simply, whoever reverted last shouldn't matter, the current content of the page while something is being discussed/argued is irrelevant unless it's a very major edit being disputed, such as someone adding/removing entire sections of the article or a mass rewrite. After each user gets their revert in and a side is still unsatisfied with the other's revert reason and/or "compromise edit", at that point it should go to the talk page. And each user getting to revert once isn't an issue, as each side can make the case for their edit in the edit summary and attempt to compromise the edit there without needing to get into a talkpage dispute about it, in fact most minor editing disputes get resolved that way without having to get into an argument on the talk page. The problems only arise when a user does revert more than once, as at that point it's clear they're not budging or what to compromise about the edit is more complex than it could be handled through a single revert + summary.
- Plus this still doesn't solve the answer of what is the "original version", in the editing dispute you bring up, Alex didn't entirely undo what I wrote, so what counts as he "original version" there? And other cases can get more complex than that, especially if several users got their hands in and each attempted to compromise edit along the way. Omega Tyrant 18:59, February 23, 2021 (EST)
Having had some time to think about this, I realise that this proposal was a mistake. I do still feel that some kind of automatic mediation should take effect in the event of an edit war, but I can’t think of a reasonable way of doing it. For now, I’m withdrawing this proposal. Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 20:19, February 25, 2021 (EST)