Sting-Ray ZA@legacy41574065 (talk | contribs) |
Aml8302311@legacy41523769 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ;Proposal: |
||
| − | Make [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-revert_rule Three-revert rule] from [http://en.wikipedia.org/ wikipedia] also policy on WoWWiki. |
||
| − | |||
| − | {{Vote/Vote}} |
||
===Votes=== |
===Votes=== |
||
<!-- Vote below this line, after all other previously cast votes --> |
<!-- Vote below this line, after all other previously cast votes --> |
||
Revision as of 13:45, 18 May 2006
Votes
Yes:
- Yes Ralthor 00:39, 28 Feb 2006 (EST) - ()
- Yes Omaha 14:02, 6 April 2006 (EDT) - ()
- Yes Schmidt 16:40, 24 April 2006 (EDT) - (not real practical right now, but it could be filed anyways)
- Yes ClydeJr 16:48, 24 April 2006 (EDT) - ()
- Yes TheMaster42 20:59, 5 May 2006 (EDT) - (This is a great rule for Wikipedia, and would be good to have here, at least on paper.)
- Yes Sting-Ray ZA 07:15, 9 May 2006 (EDT) - (Great idea, could at least be implemented, if not policed 100%)
No:
Comments
- Seems like a pretty good idea, but I'm not sure how it will be policed. --Fandyllic
- Yeah. Unless there are some clear idea's for how to police this idea, I am not voting yet. Jeoh 12:30, 24 Jan 2006 (EST)
- Its a good rule although likely not needed. For it to be policed someone would have to notice the same page being edited a bunch of times by the same person, or a person whos work keeps getting deleted would have to call attention to it. Like I said probably not neccessary or the easier to rule to enforce, but its a good rule and something to point to if someone gets caught doing it. Ralthor 00:39, 28 Feb 2006 (EST)
- I know this rule is in place at Wikipedia to prevent edit wars, but we really don't have anything like that here (yet?). I don't really see a need for it, unless we just want to have it in case of an edit war in the future. How does this affect people who are slowly adding data to articles and are saving after every change instead of just previewing? Example: See changes created in Hunter abilities made by DaAznSaN on April 24 2006. All changes are good changes, but he/she saved the changes instead of just previewing and then adding. (Not trying to pick on the guy, just saw that happening today.) - ClydeJr 16:16, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
- The idea here is that if one person wants an article to say something specific in a specific way, and he keeps reverting other people's beneficent changes, he shouldn't revert more than three times in 24 hours. This rule would apply on the World of Warcraft API page, when Fandyllic had broken up the page into different groups. While I don't remember anyone reverting except once (to bring it back to the way it had been), many people hated the change and would have reverted it if it had been acceptable. Thankfully, there was discussion about it before anything crazy came of it.
- But note that in the Wikipedia version of the rule, it says self-reverts, correction of simple vandalism, and removing posts by a banned or blocked user do not count towards the three per day. So if DaAznSaN's reverts were to correct his own mistakes, then that's fine. Further, if each of the edits was not a reversion, then it would be fine, and it would not count at all. Does that cover it? Schmidt 16:38, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
- Quite clear, thanks. My brain was saying Revert=Edit, even though they are completely different things. - ClydeJr 16:48, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
- As for policing, maybe it could be filed under vandalism, and someone could say "User:So and So violated 3RR on Whatever-page. BAN HIM FOREVER!" But other than that, yeah, it's not very easily done. Schmidt 16:38, 24 April 2006 (EDT)