| Forums: War Room → Introduce revert policy | 
|
Note: This thread has been unedited for 4050 days. It is considered archived – the discussion is over. Do not edit this thread unless it really needs a response.
| This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was: |
|---|
| Policy created at Revert Policy. |
| Please do not edit this discussion. |
Some of us have often been concerned about the regularity and, at times, the carelessness with which we often revert edits made to our articles. Most of the time, people who are reverted were trying to help the wiki – even if they were misguided. We seem to like to revert too much, and our edit summaries often sound lazy and dismissive. We also have the occasional problem with edit wars, as well as the occasional less-than-perfect response to vandalism. To answer these concerns, I've drafted User:The 888th Avatar/Avatar Wiki:Revert Policy, and I would like to make it a site policy. Thanks, The 888th Avatar (talk) 10:34, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Totally
disagreed! – Natsu11 · (wall • Nanatsu no Taizai) 10:42, October 24, 2011 (UTC)- I agree with making this a policy, but I do have a few remarks on some things in the first paraghaph:
- You state in 1.3. "Leave a message on the talk page of the contributor with {{uw-vandalism1}}.", I would maybe add to that in someway to only add that if the act of vandalism/spam was severe. I often try to avoid giving official warning and give the user an unofficial "friendly" warning aka just a message where I politely ask the user to stop. This follows your "assume good faith" policy, but I think leaving the wording like you have it now may prompt users into giving an official warning on sight, which isn't beneficial imo. These users may still be learning wikia's ways and did not realize that they were vandalizing, and thus by issuing an official warning we might stop their motivation to keep editing here or tamper with their chance of them later becoming a rollback or something (if they have stopped making bad edits ofcourse).
- 1.5. "Do not leave any other message for the contributor." Does this also include polite messages after a first warning to ask the user again to stop before s/he gets another warning? Just asking because I often leave such messages before ensuing a (second) warning.
- For the rest, I totally agree with you. Lady Lostris /
SOAP 10:53, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with making this a policy, but I do have a few remarks on some things in the first paraghaph:
- 1.3 was just laziness on my part. :P I also clarified 1.5 to mean the "official" template warning, not the nicer messages we should be trying first. Thanks for pointing both of those out. :) The 888th Avatar (talk) 11:02, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Question: Would the "official warning template" now be unable to be used by users, or am I misreading something?
- Because otherwise, this sounds great. TAD, theavatardemotivator - talk 11:09, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
- The "official warning template" can definitely still be used by anyone. The instructions on the draft apply to all users; they're designed to tell all users what they can do and what they should probably reconsider doing. :) Is there a specific part of the wording that I could probably improve to avoid confusion? The 888th Avatar (talk) 11:14, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
- The current wording of 1.6. still excludes second polite messages after a first warning, the messages asking the user to really stop or they're going to get a second warning.
- Another thing I just thought of, maybe you could expand the "Do not leave any other message for the contributor if a template warning has already been given." to the cases where someone has already addressed the issue informally (if this is done properly ofcourse). It just often happens that someone leaves a message about something and then a few other users leave more or less the exact some message. Lady Lostris / SOAP 11:16, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
- The "official warning template" can definitely still be used by anyone. The instructions on the draft apply to all users; they're designed to tell all users what they can do and what they should probably reconsider doing. :) Is there a specific part of the wording that I could probably improve to avoid confusion? The 888th Avatar (talk) 11:14, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
I've expanded the part about communicating to incorporate your concerns. :) The 888th Avatar (talk) 11:40, October 24, 2011 (UTC)