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.