Guild Wars Wiki talk:No revert wars

This is intended as basic, preliminary reversion policy which can be amended into a more comprehensive or specific policy later. -- Gordon Ecker 05:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have two main objections:

1. It's too generic to the point of doing more harm than good. Inevitably, two users will revert each other, one will come to whatever they decide the limit for staying not a revert war is, the other will make one more revert, and the former will accuse the latter of breaking NRW.

2. Why go through the trouble of getting a temporary policy passed when you can work on a long-term policy? 1RR (which itself is a compromise between 3RR and 1RV) is getting some good discussion, and it seems like it could meet everyone's needs with a bit more work. - Tanetris 08:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

1. And the sysops can then step in and rule that they're both breaking NRW and block them both if necessary. In revert wars, it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. When they start reverting each other more than once, this policy can be invoked.

2. Getting a good discussion doesn't equal being close to consensus. We've have good discussions for 1RV and 3RR as well. Good discussions for the builds policy too. I had previously suggested for at least a simple revert policy put in place first while they continue their debate, but that hasn't happened yet. So I'm all in favor of having something to spells out reverting violations clearly asap. We don't even have any good and concrete examples of incidents on this wiki that shows why we need a comprehensive revert policy. -- ab.er.rant 08:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This policy is not clear enough to enable users to abide by it (when are reverts allowed or not?), therefore I dont like it. In general, I dont feel that working towards "temporary" policies is a good idea, since we risk becomming stuck at an inferior policy. --Xeeron 10:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While I personally have a defenition on when a rv war has started, other may have a different one. As this policy does not define one, I don't see how it can help. Of course, any defenition would make it into one of the existing policy sugestions, or a competitor to those. Backsword 10:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Move back to draft

The purpose of this policy proposal was to get passed quickly and then get amended in order to build a comprehensive revert policy one piece at a time, but it doesn't seem to be working. Does anyone object to moving this back to draft policies? -- Gordon Ecker 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)