Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version/Policy vote: 24 hour bans for revert wars

message: The previous poll ("Revert wars considered harmful") and discussion below indicate that the community is broadly 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 in one 24 hour period - these 6 reverts may be to one page, or spread across several pages. This rule is not intended to grant an allowance of 5 reverts per user per day, reverts should still be avoided.
The only exception to this rule will be in cases of clear vandalism — not content disputes, but cleaning up after a user who goes on a spree on vandalism, like the current case of User:Bird and his never-ending list of proxy IPs with which he is circumventing a hard ban.  
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, and does nothing to stop the warring users moving on to another article and engaging in exactly the same destructive behaviour.
This proposal is to turn the guideline into a policy, and to back this up with a 24 hour ban for any user who breaks it. This ban could be enforced by any sysop.
-- fabiform
=== Proposed amendment by Eloquence, added on March 14 ===
Any 24 hour ban decision needs to be confirmed by a quickpoll before it can be implemented. The policy will be refined on the basis of quickpoll results to better deal with exceptions and "gaming".
If you support this amendment, please add "with quickpolls" to your vote in favor. If you object to it, please add "against quickpolls" to your vote. Please also add your opinion on Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls.
=== Arguments in favor ===
(by fabiform, etc)
*Sysops already have the power to ban any anonymous user for 24 hours if they engage in destructive behaviour.  This extension of their powers to ban logged in users would be clearly defined and their actions would be open to scrutiny.
*Sysops would not be given the power to extend the 24 hour ban.  Once a user returns after a 24 hour ban they have a clean slate and are given a second chance.
*This ban could be put in place as swiftly as pages are currently protected by sysops; destructive users would no longer be able to disrupt the community for weeks before any action is taken against them.
*If a sysop were to make a mistake, or abuse this power, the worst that any user would face is not being able to edit this website for 24 hours.
*Any sysop abusing this new power would be an obvious candidate for desysopping.
*Banning a user for 24 hours will give them time to calm down and to step back and examine their actions.  The present system does little to slow a user down if they lose their sense of proportion and move from page to page as they are protected due to their warring.
*When one or two users misbehave, the rest of the community is no longer punished by being prevented from editing certain pages and having to follow warring users around, cleaning up after them.
=== Arguments in opposition === 
(by Martin, etc)
* Sysops and users widely differ in what they see as "clear vandalism", so making an exception for clear vandals increases controversy. For example, note that Wik considers Lir a clear vandal.
* Not making an exception for "clear vandalism" encourages individual vandals to get reverted (three times each!) by a wide variety of good Wikipedians. This promotes cohesiveness, shares the load, guards against burnouts, and displays a united community front.
* When is a revert not a revert? When it is:
** A partial revert - I revert part of an edit, but not the other part
** A logical revert - I made a change, it got reverted, so I made the same changed but phrased it differently (hoping it would be more acceptable the second time).
** A revert+edit - I reverted, and then I added some extra text myself (hoping it will address the relevant point).
* Protecting the version disliked by the reversionista is a better alternative (see proposal and support below)
* Banning prevents discussion, and discussion is very often precisely the force required to fix the revert war at source. While protection does not encourage discussion in all cases, often it does.
* Extremely active editors may well revert six times in 24 hours for legitimate reasons without realizing it, particularly when the reverts are spread out over a large number of unrelated pages.
* As phrased, there are too many ways to "game" the system
* Setting per-user limits of any kind will set us up for endless, pointless games of "hunt the sock puppet."
=== Poll ===
==== Wikipedians in favor of this proposed policy ====
# mav (revert wars solve nothing and only lead to ruined edit histories, high tempers, and increased attrition of valuable contributors. A 24 hour time-out should lesson the harm from edit disputes and encourage people to engage in consensus editing)
# Nilmerg
# -Robert Merkel 11:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the threshold has been passed is to be decided by a straw poll which requires at least five sysops participating and at least an 80% agreement that the threshold has been passed. If that 80% is subsequently not met, the block should be removed until it is. Sysops only because one concern raised elsewhere was that the process would be subverted through the use of multiple accounts created for the purpose. Human judgement should be used to decide what is a revert and what is legitimate dealing with trolls or masked reverts through trivial changes elsewhere in the article.
The purpose is to remove the scope for unilateral action and allow for human interpretation of whether a series of edits is legitimate, such as dealing with vandalism, or an attempt to work around the limit, as postulated by Wik. Jamesday 07:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: A ban lasting 3 days or one week is more appropriate. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy vote: 24 hour bans for revert wars? 

message: ==== Wikipedians in favor of this proposed policy ====
# mav (revert wars solve nothing and only lead to ruined edit histories, high tempers, and increased attrition of valuable contributors. A 24 hour time-out should lesson the harm from edit disputes and encourage people to engage in consensus editing)
# Nilmerg
# -Robert Merkel 11:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: # mav (revert wars solve nothing and only lead to ruined edit histories, high tempers, and increased attrition of valuable contributors. A 24 hour time-out should lesson the harm from edit disputes and encourage people to engage in consensus editing)
# Nilmerg
# -Robert Merkel 11:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedians in favor of this proposed policy 

message: #Tannin 11:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedians opposed to this proposed policy 

message: # Oppose: Martin: See below: I prefer allowing sysops to protect the version used by the set of contributors who have abided by the three revert guideline. I also question whether a limit of five reverts is too low. I also don't see the benefit in making exceptions for vandalism - pure vandalism will always be reverted by someone else. Also, I note that certain Wikipedians have felt free to unilaterally label other people as vandals, even where this is disputed, which would make this rule unnecessarilly controversial.
#:How does that address the desire to avoid protecting the article, so others can improve it? Jamesday 07:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstaining Wikipedians 

message: If you object, would the following change cause you to change your vote?
:Whether the threshold has been passed is to be decided by a straw poll which requires at least five sysops participating and at least an 80% agreement that the threshold has been passed. If that 80% is subsequently not met, the block should be removed until it is. Sysops only because one concern raised elsewhere was that the process would be subverted through the use of multiple accounts created for the purpose. Human judgement should be used to decide what is a revert and what is legitimate dealing with trolls or masked reverts through trivial changes elsewhere in the article.
The purpose is to remove the scope for unilateral action and allow for human interpretation of whether a series of edits is legitimate, such as dealing with vandalism, or an attempt to work around the limit, as postulated by Wik. Jamesday 07:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on refinement of the proposal

message: "Yes, I'd change vote" ... or "I support the proposed policy with this refinement":
#Jamesday 07:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support refinement 

message: "No, I wouldn't change vote" ... or "I don't support the proposed policy with this refinement":
#Wik 15:18, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
#Ruhrjung 15:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose refinement 

message: # Darkelf 01:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support the proposed policy but wouldn't support it with this change

message: Refactored conversation
* We still need to warn people better that (multiple) reverting is bad.
* There should be a 'semi-automatic' way of dealing with this problem. Ban lengths could be proportional to number of reverts. If a user reverts 60 times in the last two days, punished, say, (60/6/2)*24 = 120 hours (he was 5 times "a single bad behaviour")
** This suggestion is inflexible and unrelated to quality of reversions. Why not just use a string of 24-hour bans?
* This rule is trivial for a troll to "game" by making trivial (bad) edits, which a good user wouldn't be allowed to revert.
** This rule isn't aimed at all trollish behaviour. We need seperate rules for that (and we need them badly).
** You shouldn't feed the troll by following him and reverting every troll. Rather, call for community support.
* Proposal: A user can be banned for 24 hours if X sysops post agreement, with reasons, on some notice page, within some short timespace. X would be at least 3 but small enough to enable a rapid response. 
** Proposal seconded, thirded, and fourthed; given glory laud and honor.
** No good. This would delay implementing a ban and add an extra layer of bureaucracy. Still, it's not that bad: small values of X, and shared responsibility.
*** Unless a single admin can ban a user, there is scope for this bureaucracy. Yes, it should be easy to find 4-5 sysops. Not advocating a software change- there can just be a page for it.
**** Sysops currently have the technical ability to ban a logged in users, but absolutely no right to do so, except in the case of re-encarnations of hard banned users.
** Too open-ended, and dangerously broad. Might allow a small number of sysops to effectively create policy as well as enforce it. Open to abuse. Voting for a fast ban could split the community. Sysops shouldn't have such broad powers.
*** Proposal was badly worded. Try instead: "X admins can ban a user if, in their collective opinion, the user has breached established policy." In effect it would be a rapid-fire arbitration committee, with more limited powers (temporary bans only). Binding decision would only be made by the real committee.
** Wikipedia:Administrators says "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." This goes against that.
*** Well, currently any one sysop can ban a user for violating policy established by the whole community. This would make it require X sysops to agree, and is more democratic. We have already tried having whole community input (the old /ban pages). They were a disaster: lots of talk but decisions still had to be taken by Jimbo. 
*** Yes, even one sysop has the power, but that's supposed to be used only for clear vandalism and reincarnations of hard-banned users. Extending this power to breaches of established policy is a significant change.
** An X sysops model may be too simplistic. Suppose that X agree, but several disagree. Rather, we need ways to develop a consensus faster in an emergency.
* This is reasonable and urgently needed until some of the ideas on the mailing list (in the Rethinking Vandalism and Transition to WikiDemocracy threads) come into being.
* What we need is to delay all edits so they won't take place for several days, during which you'd only see the update while editing. Edit wars wouldn't be exciting.
** This is a horrible idea. It's a WikiWiki. Fast fast. What you propose is a fundemental change which would drain the life and vitality of everything good about our rapid-fire editing processes. - Fennec 14:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A ban lasting 3 days or one week is more appropriate. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments, suggestions for refinements, arguments against