ESB:Convention/Policy reviews - Content dispute/Subtopic1

I would like to make the following revisions, and that this will be part of the bylaws.

1. This article will outline the proper procedures in the event of an edit war and/or relating to content dispute.

a. Not everyone will agree on how things should be done on the wiki. However, in order to have consistency and organization within the wiki, it is important to establish policies and formatting guidelines for everyone to follow in which the community agrees upon.
b. As this is a collaborative environment, it is important to resolve disputes by using communication to address the problem instead of ignoring the problem.

a. When an edit war occurs, all parties must stop editing the ~~article~~page and take the problem to an informal discussion on one of the editor's message walls or in a forum post and explain their reasons for their edits.
b. Once they have explained their reasons, they must follow the procedures below to resolve the dispute.

a. If an established policy and/or guideline can resolve the dispute, that policy and/or guideline must be followed.
b. If there is disagreement in regards to the policy and/or guideline, discussion is allowed, but the reverts must be halted so that the disputed content on the ~~article~~ page is left alone until the dispute is resolved.
c. If the dispute is still not resolved ~~in clause 2b, above~~, an uninvolved administrator must step in to mediate the discussion.
d. If the dispute involves one (1) or more administrators, a bureaucrat uninvolved in the edit war must intervene.
e. If all bureaucrats are involved in the edit war, an official discussion is required.
f. In the event that no such policy and/or guideline exists to establish a resolution policy-wise, the dispute may require further discussion that will ultimately be decided in an official discussion to establish a policy and/or guideline.

a. Once the dispute is resolved, the decision is final. Any edit made by the losing party in the dispute that blatantly ignores the decision is subject to a maximum three (3) day block.
b. If any user is in disagreement over the decision, they are free to make a ~~petition~~ proposal to change the guidelines/policies/rules/etc.

a. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation.

a. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
b. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page rules.~~guidelines.~~
c. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
d. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
e. Removal of clear copyright violations and any illegal content.

a. During an edit war, when a page is reverted after three (3) times by the same user, the editing must stop and be reported to an administrator.
b. If an administrator is involved in the edit war, the following procedures must be followed:.

i. The ~~article~~ page must be protected by any administrator and no further reverts made in regards to the disputed content.
ii. An uninvolved bureaucrat must intervene to mediate the dispute.
iii. All succeeding procedures are outlined in ~~the "dispute"~~ section C2 of this article.

c. If the edit war continues after a user has made 3 reverts, the following must be followed:.

1. At this point, the page should have been protected by an administrator and the edit war should have stopped.

ii. Dispute between non-administrators and administrators in which the administrators are in agreement.

1. At this point, the page should have been protected by an administrator and the edit war should have stopped.

iii. Dispute between non-administrators and administrators in which the administrators are in disagreement.

1. It is expected that the dispute between administrators be resolved by discussion and that the edit war does not continue.
2. Any such violation of this requires an informal discussion to the matter or an official discussion if the matter is serious.

iv. Dispute between only administrators in which the administrators are in disagreement.

1. It is expected that the dispute between administrators be resolved by discussion and that the edit war does not continue.
2. Any such violation of this requires an informal discussion to the matter or an official discussion if the matter is serious.

— AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 18:56, December 13, 2017 (UTC)