[WikiEN-l] Policy on Reversions?

Thu Nov 20 11:21:48 UTC 2003

> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: maveric149 at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:50:13 -0500
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy on Reversions?
> 
> Erik wrote:
>> ...
>> A code of honor works well for small projects with
>> like-minded people. Wikipedia is neither small nor
>> like-minded. That's why it needs policies which are
>> actually followed through, and not just a call for
>> WikiLove every now and then. We don't need a
>> WikiGestapo, but we need a certain amount of policy
>> enforcement and clear rules, and that's just not
>> happening. As a result, NPOV is mostly theoretical for
>> many of the controversial articles on Wikipedia.
> 
> Sadly, I think you are right. Bureaucracy expansion.... Hm.
> 
> One possible idea:
> Somebody mentioned a "3 revert" rule where anything more than 3 reverts in an
> article content dispute by any party (not to be confused with reverting
> simple vandalism), is grounds for a warning. If within a certain amount of
> time, say a month, they go pass 3 reverts on the same article again, then
> they get a final warning. Strike three in the same month and they are banned
> from editing for a week. After that they can come back on probation (3 months
> long maybe?). At that point: 1 probation violation gets an automatic 1 week
> editing ban, second one gets 2 weeks and the third gets them a HardBan for at
> least the duration of their probation period.
> 
> Hopefully this will encourage people to work together instead of automatically
> reverting. But we also need a way to resolve disputes.
> 
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

For there to be 3 reverts there must generally be someone else reverting to
their version.

Also this does not cover the sort of obliteration of the existing article by
someone who posts a new version with the declartion that the old one was,
"all crap".

Fred