Thoughts on the edit warring policy

Does "requesting the tropers involved to start a discussion. In case of signs of agenda, it's fine to open an Ask The Tropers query to get a moderator's viewpoint." not imply just that? Maybe I could have phrased it better somehow.

There are two differences. One, my idea is that not just participants but also tropers who see the dispute but aren't participants should work on resolving conflicts. Two, I suspect that we take out the banhammer too quickly.

Would "requesting the tropers noticing the dispute to start a discussion and inviting parties involved" sound better?

Not sure how banhammer is "too quick" in the proposal, since the point is for it to be used only as last resort.

Edited by Amonimus on Mar 2nd 2024 at 11:01:18 PM

Probably (on the first). On the second, I think that folks will be asking for moderator input in non-last resort cases, and that's either unnecessary or premature.

Septimus's proposal sounds like something we could work with.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 2nd 2024 at 9:38:10 AM

So what counts as "calling" a mod? Because plenty of reports are already made on ATT for the sake of hashing out editing disputes without the intent of calling a mod, but the venue is still ones mods frequent. I know it's been discussed that maybe ATT is being misused, but I don't personally see how using it to handle disputes — something people are outright told they can do — would count as doing it incorrectly; but I also don't want it to seem like pushing for mod help.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 2nd 2024 at 10:02:57 AM

Septimus wasn't talking about ATT when he mentioned taking disputes to discussion. He was talking about discussion pages. ATT is where you'd go to get the mods' attention if taking it to the discussion page doesn't work.

My point is that in the past I've seen it used for both things. Getting help with disputes from the community at large without requiring mod intervention is something ATT is used for, and pretty often at that. This is why I was asking. Assuming every ATT query about an edit war is a report for the mods is, in my mind, a problem; one that discourages people from using the most common and frequented venue for getting help just because mods also handle issues there. If ATT is specifically meant for getting mod attention on these things, it should not be called "Ask the Tropers".

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 2nd 2024 at 10:43:55 AM

Questions about the remit of Ask The Tropers are kind of off-topic, but I think the underlying issue is that not every disagreement about an edit needs to be brought to Ask The Tropers, certainly not if the disputing parties haven't even attempted to begin a conversation. Try that first.

Also, another mod checked and recent changes to the paging system made it possible to page users to discussion page posts, so asking other users to join discussion page conversations is easier than it used to be.

I've amended that post with what's been discussed so far. If there's a merit to, the specifc points discussed recently could be own voting options, especially parts that could need own talk.

Edited by Amonimus on Mar 3rd 2024 at 11:31:33 PM

@96 I like the proposed changes so far.

I've only ever reported an edit war once. I considered it to be an easy go-to rule, though I did have the lingering feeling that a well-intentioned troper may not even realise that they broke a suspension-worthy rule until after the ATT is made, or if they even see the ATT at all before getting suspended.

The current ABA rule does make me (and other tropers) attentive at checking page history, but I'm led to agree from the discussion so far that it may be too strict. Making the response a notifier instead (unless an agenda is evident) sounds reasonable, as well as notifying the troper first to try resolve things. If it does get to ATT, I also agree with pinging the involved tropers about their edit war.

Bumping for more input.

I like it. It would involve fewer suspensions of the "I didn't realize A-B-A was the threshold" kind, assuming the offender is not doing anything else that's ban-worthy. Or less suspending only for rules' sake when resolving the edit conflict is the better avenue.

That should also solve the weird part where someone can edit war over the span of months on a reasonably busy page just by not noticing; seemed weird that people would de facto wind up getting a ban to tell them that edit warring is bad when the normal response there seems to be 'oops I missed that history entry'.

Anyone else?

Think that's all we have to discuss. Been watching from the sidelines all this time, but I don't have any further comments to add what was already discussed before. Are we ready to set up the crowner or does anyone have closing thoughts beforehand?

I dunno, is this a crowner-like question?

What is being proposed, essentially, is to drop the third paragraph on Edit War and replace it with something like "On TV Tropes, edit warring is when someone makes an edit, someone else disagrees, and the first someone reinstates their edit without having gotten a consensus for it."

What we need to define is the following four:

• Technical definition — An editor (Troper A) reapplying one of their previous edits, or having a phrasing similar to one of them, after it's been changed by someone else (Troper B), effectively undoing the change.
• Exceptions:
  • If the edit by Troper B is in violation of any policy, including unexplained removals, provided that Troper A indicates that issue in the edit reason.
  • Troper A cites a permission to do so, either a private message from Troper B, community consensus, or word of mod.
• Responsibinity:
  • It's up to Troper A to gain such permission before reapplying their edit.
  • In case Troper A has neglected to do so, it's up to Troper B or a third-party observer to start a topic in the Discussion tab with both Troper A and Troper B included. An announcement in Ask The Tropers can be made if it requires more voices. Neither party can reapply their edits before reaching a consensus.
• Punishment — In case of an unjustified Edit War, Troper A is to recieve an according Notifier, except for clauses for suspension:
  • Troper A has reapplied their edit on the same page a second time without a permission.
  • Troper A's first Edit War shows signs of hostility or bad faith.

And verify if each of those sound good enough to base the page from.

Edited by Amonimus on Mar 28th 2024 at 2:54:18 PM

Yes, that would mean it surely wasn't an accident, though maybe it's still worth getting them to talk.

The whole Edit War policy as it currently stands is the sole reason why I tend to avoid making further edits on pages where an edit of mine was reverted. The dangers of A>B>A has me constantly checking for evidence supporting my edits to avoid edit wars. If an edit of mine is reverted for any reason, I throw in the towel and avoid making any more edits to the reverted article. Having a way to discuss edit wars without going scorched earth on tropers for a single spark of edit warring sounds reasonable.

x4 The reason why I mentioned hooking a crowner is because several other users in this thread already flirted the idea of one. If we actually do a crowner, should we make a post in the ATT pointing to here, or add a bulletin post to get a better response from the wider population? I can already see this as a major change to the wiki's policy, so having more votes cast can dictate if the rest of the userbase is fine with this going through.

Well, I am not sure that changes to moderation policy are really up to crowners.

I would probably formulate it as "You need to have a consensus - or the support of the editor(s) who disagreed with you - before reinstating a reverted edit."

That sounds fine.

Anyone else?