| Revision as of 13:26, 13 December 2005 editCarbonite (talk | contribs)4,550 edits {{proposed}}← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:31, 13 December 2005 edit undoCarbonite (talk | contribs)4,550 edits copyedit into a more coherent proposal; not endorsing the policy, howeverNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| :"If anyone makes a change that you don't like, don't revert it. Instead, talk about it on the article talk page or on their user talk page. This excludes ]." | :"If anyone makes a change that you don't like, don't revert it. Instead, talk about it on the article talk page or on their user talk page. This excludes ]." | ||
| This rule is primarily for teams of contributors who want to avoid edit wars and assume good faith. | |||
| Vandalism is defined in this article as anything that everybody, including the alleged vandal, agrees is vandalism. | |||
| ⚫ | Team members sign up and are initially considered "members in good standing". Upon detecting a rule violation (i.e., reverting anything instead of discussing the revert), any member in good standing may move the name of the violator to the "Suspended" section. The result of a suspension is that the members who are still in good standing obviously continue to trust each other. | ||
| This rule is primarily for teams of contributors who want to avoid ]s and ]. Having realized that article development has ground to a halt because of incessant reversions, the people agreeing to following the zero-revert rule have a higher respect for each others edits than those agreeing to revert only once. | |||
| Regaining one's standing is as easy as undoing the revert that merited the suspension and discussing the edit in question. | |||
| As of December 06, 2005, there are no teams following this rule yet, but that's just because they haven't transcended to this, the hightest level of edithood. | |||
| Non-members of the future ZeroRR teams are not bound by this rule. For them, the ] still applies, or for some neanderthals, the ] can still be used (i.e., no more than 3 reverts per user per article, in any 24-hour period). | |||
| Note that the three-revert rule is NOT voluntary, and is enforced by the ]. The zero-revert rule is voluntary and as such is not enforced (other than by conscience and pizza at Sarah's house for members in good standing). | |||
| ⚫ | Team members sign up and are initially considered "members in good standing". Upon detecting a rule violation (i.e., reverting anything instead of discussing the revert), any member in good standing may |
||
| Regaining one's standing is as easy as (1) undoing the revert that merited the suspension, (2) discussing the edit in question, and (3) agreeing to buy one of the pizzas (not Little Ceasars). While on suspension, one ought not to attempt to restore his own credentials; please wait for a member in good standing to finish his thick crust. | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 13:31, 13 December 2005
 | The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
The zero-revert rule states:
- "If anyone makes a change that you don't like, don't revert it. Instead, talk about it on the article talk page or on their user talk page. This excludes vandalism."
This rule is primarily for teams of contributors who want to avoid edit wars and assume good faith.
Team members sign up and are initially considered "members in good standing". Upon detecting a rule violation (i.e., reverting anything instead of discussing the revert), any member in good standing may move the name of the violator to the "Suspended" section. The result of a suspension is that the members who are still in good standing obviously continue to trust each other.
Regaining one's standing is as easy as undoing the revert that merited the suspension and discussing the edit in question.
Category: