Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Request for stable state

Description
A request for stable state will be a project that enables an editor to make a request that an article is reverted to its most recent stable state, in the face of challenged unilateral editing. A request will be subject to certain provisos, and will only apply in cases where a single editor is attempting to push through a challenged edit. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is based on a form of peer review: editors are free to edit articles, but if your edits are challenged you need to obtain a consensus for them. This can usually be achieved through discussion on the talk page and reaching a compromise, or by soliciting independent third opinions. Unfortunately a frequent problem on Wikipedia is that an editor will persist in pushing through their edits despite opposition to them. This can threaten the stability of the article and result in inaccurate content being added. It will operate in a similar way to how requesting page protection works. However, it allows a much more flexible response in several ways: The aim is quite simply to persuade an editor to obtain support for their edit, either via the talk page on the article, by soliciting a third opinion either through the appropriate project or an RFC, or entering dispute resolution. For that reason, requests for stable state will be limited to only unilateral editing i.e. edits undertaken/supported by just one editor. The project will not address contentious edits that are backed by more than one editor, since such edits enjoy a degree of support, and the extent of that support is probably best determined via a discussion process. An editor that submits a request must fulfil two simple requirements: A restorer should select the most recent stable state from the edit history, from directly before the challenged edit. They should ensure the two criteria have been met, and should also check the talk page and edit history to ensure the edit is not supported by other parties. During the drafting of this proposal, a concern was raised that it may be construed as canvassing. There are two important distinctions between this project and canvassing: support for a preferred version cannot be solicited i.e. like requesting page protection, it is a neutral response that simply restores the stable state of an article; secondly, an editor can eliminate the project from the equation by simply obtaining some support for their edit. In that sense a "consensus" cannot be canvassed from the project. Anyone can sign up to be part of the project, and anyone can request assistance.
 * Why do you want to start a new group, instead of joining one of these existing groups?
 * How will it operate?
 * 1) Integrity of the article – page protection does not distinguish between versions of the article.
 * 2) A faster response – page protection has to be undertaken by admins, whereas this is an initiative anyone can participate in.
 * 3) Not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut – protecting an article severely limits the type of editing that can be undertaken; this initiative would not impose such restrictions on edits that are accepted by the community.
 * The aim of the initiative
 * Provisos
 * 1) They must give a full explanation on the article talk page.
 * 2) They must provide the editor on their talk page with i) a link to their explanation on the article talk page, and ii) a link to a relevant project page where the editor can solicit a third opinion.
 * Responses to such requests
 * Concerns
 * Who can be involved?

Support
Please specify whether or not you would join the project.
 * 1) Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Go Phightins! (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC) I would join the project.
 * 3) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC) - My comments can be seen in Betty's sandbox regarding the developing of this proposal.
 * 5) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) --- The Old Jacobite The '45  03:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7)  Be— —Critical  04:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII  The Undertaker 20–0  07:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / GG-J's Talk 09:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11)  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)