Topic on All The Tropes talk:How We Do Bans Around Here

Especially the type of edit-warring that re-breaks something that a mod fixed, but the garden-variety "is not!" "is too!" "is not!" "is too!" "is not!" "is too!" type also uses up time and resources.

One question: tempban immediately, or warn then tempban if repeated?

@Agiletek @GentlemensDame883 @Haggishunter @HeneryVII @Ilikecomputers @Jlaw @Lequinni @RivetVermin @Umbire the Phantom @Utini501 @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk

For the avoidance of doubt, what exactly constitutes "edit warring"?

Undoing and re-doing of the same edit.

I vote aye, I've had a lot of trouble with such folks on other wiki sites

I would, in my opinion, prefer if it was not done immediately; I think doing any kind of punishment on a hurry is a dangerous idea.

I could've sworn we already had that, but no. Failing that, I thought it must be on another page somewhere, but again, no.

Yes, yes, a million times yes -- it should be there. I'm pretty sure we've cited it, at least as a threat to an unruly user, at least once in recent^[when?] months.

It's on our list of ban reasons in the tool, but it isn't in any of our guidelines or policies yet.

So far, the votes are to add, preferably under "after a warning". But the discussion is only four hours old.

Has anything happened recently?

Yes, which is what reminded me of the absence. A new troper, still under moderation, added back in the "how to use this template" comments that Looney Toons took out of a new Work page. Not bannable in and of itself, but part of a larger issue.

Ah okay. Hmmm

I vote for ot to be banneable, but in a three strikes level. One time can be a mistake, twice is a Kpop girl group, and thrice is fully on purpose, direct into tempban. Once more after that will garant full wiki ban to the offender.

We're already doing "three strikes" for minor issues. First strike gets a comment, second strike gets an "On Notice" warning, and third strike gets the tempban.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'd like to go with Lequinni's three strikes idea, the better to sort out the innocent or confused mistakes, sincere and with-reason disagreements, and malicious actors.

A few notes for consideration:

There are a few kinds of reverts, with different levels of intent. This isn’t exhaustive, but generally there are manual reverts, in which one adds the same or similar text back in by typing, and direct reverts, where someone literally reverts. The first can be (but is not always) an unintentional act (Such as thinking they forgot to add something earlier, when in fact they did and it was removed). The second is always deliberate.

The three strikes idea is kind of similar, yet quite different in practice, to an existing policy in use on The Other Wiki: The three-revert rule. It is important to note that Wikipedia’s policy is not a hard three strikes rule, but a line in the sand: If you do three reverts in a 24 hour period, you are edit warring without question. A mod can intervene and declare your actions edit warring before that point if it’s clear. It’s a "I'll know it when I see it" kind of deal.

The caveat is that edit wars here aren’t always going to happen within a span of 24 hours. People edit more slowly around here.

I do believe there should be some expiry period for strikes if we go that route, say a year or three, when considering a ban.

The obvious provisions should be considered for any edit warring clause (More so to reassure the innocent and provide guidance.)

• If all the involved parties consent to undo a change beforehand via public discussion, with agreement noted on wiki in a discussion (If not entirely hashed out in public view) and preferably linked in the changeset, it ain’t edit warring.
  • If a party is absent for some time (I ain’t sure how long) and a moderator (For small changes) and/or the community (For big or controversial ones) gives a go ahead, that ain’t edit warring either.
• If you accidentally revert somehow (It happens, if rarely), and realize it, the appropriate action is to revert your revert, and start a civil discussion about what to do. That ain’t edit warring.
• Once someone calls it edit warring, regardless of the actual number of reverts, it’s time to stop editing in mainspace (Continue in user space if you must) and hash it out with the mods if civil discussion fails. Lying about this by making frivolous reports ought to be considered a bannable offense itself.

I trust the mod team today enough that these provisions wouldn't truly be needed, but I don’t know about the mod team a few decades from now. Best to sort this out now.

The ATT moderation team, as with any other, has limited resources. I know that I’ve consumed more than my fair share of those resources, but it’s true. Moderator time spent on giving obvious edit warring second and third chances is wasted, but moderator time giving those chances to a genuinely mistaken user is not. The issue is of course, that a Troll with half a brain pretends to be the mistaken or innocent user.

Edit notice April 14, 2024: I added a break to ensure two separate ideas are clearly separated to remove ambiguity over what is meant.

Sorry for the Wall O’ Text, turned out longer then I thought.

No worries on the wall'o'text. I'd much rather see reasoned debate than rubber-stamping of a mod proposal.

This seems like a common-sense rule. Based on previous experiences with other wikis, I would suggest reinstating deleted content made without an accompanying summary be considered reasonable behaviour. I've seen a couple of instances of user with an axe to grind deleting things they don't like, without any backup whatsoever. If you can't argue for something's exclusion, I don't think you can be mad when it is reverted.

We have consensus on this, so I've added it to the "tempban after warning" list.

Thanks, everyone.