On Feb 16, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Rich Holton wrote:
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
How about a "Special:Active Pages" that would list the top 'n' most active pages -- where active would be defined as number of edits over a period of time, where adjacent edits by the same user are treated as one edit.
Would this help in the sort of situation you're referring to? Or is edit activity not a good measure?
-Rich Holton (en.wikipedia:User:Rholton)
I don't have a large enough sample size, but my experience - which is anecdotal - doesn't seem to confirm this. Very often "active" editing pages are ones that are going very well - because contributors are working with each others edits. Since the person reverting knows both what they are reverting and why, it seems reasonable to ask them to spend a few seconds to put in something like [[Category:Revert Test/Graphitti]] or [[Category:Revert Content Conflict]] as part of doing the reversion, particularly one for [[Category:3RR Limit Reached]]. We already have categories for NPOV disputes and so on, so all this proposal amounts to is:
1. Tightening the number of reverts to reversion by content, not by user/article-day, to three in each direction. 2. Creating categories for reversion. 3. Mandating their use. 4. Publicizing them so that editors interested in helping an article reach consensus and avoid an edit war have a place to look.
This removes the incentive to mobocracy, makes the notification system simpler, and halts revert wars in their tracks relatively quickly. Its intent is to reduce the amount of sturm and drang associated with such conflicts.