42

If a question receives n (say, 5) rollbacks within a hour, raise a moderator flag and lock the post.

Alternatively, if an edit by a new user (say, no edit approving privs) drops the post quality score of a post "too much" (say, by more than 100), it must go through the edit approval process.

Improve this question
3
  • Should intermediate edits count as rollbacks too then? (Maybe nice but probably not required, as if rollbacks are done using plain edits, that just means that the threshold will be reached a bit later — assuming most others will still use the "rollback" link.)
    – Arjan
    Commented Jan 22, 2011 at 10:33
  • I assume post quality score refers to Heuristics for detecting a bad answer?, right?
    – Arjan
    Commented Jan 23, 2011 at 15:11
  • @Arjan correct.
    – badp
    Commented Jan 23, 2011 at 15:27

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
32

This is for the most part completed:

  • Two rollbacks from the same user on a single post will generate a "rollback war" auto-flag for moderator attention.

  • An edit which causes a post to become "low quality" will bump the post into the Low Quality Posts review queue if the edit is live for more than 15 minutes.

The post, however, does not get automatically locked upon generating the flag.

Improve this answer
1
  • 6
    Does the two roll-backs need to happen in a certain time-frame? Or if I happen to roll-back two separated edits (not as part of a "war") on the same post it will also automatically raise a flag?
    – Tomerikoo
    Commented Apr 3, 2021 at 19:53
12

Yes please. See current real-world example here. The revision histories are a mess, and a lot of noise (42 questions with 20-30 revisions) was bumped unnecessarily, because no mod was present to stop it. (Which is to be expected on a weekend, that's not the issue. But some automated system should be in place to prevent this from getting out of hand.)

Improve this answer
9
  • That's just one of many examples. I'm sure Popular Demand will be able to come up with more.
    – badp
    Commented Jan 22, 2011 at 1:05
  • 3
    Wow that's insane.
    – John
    Commented Jan 22, 2011 at 1:07
  • 2
    Already posted here. He's mad.
    – moinudin
    Commented Jan 22, 2011 at 1:09
  • 4
    But how do we 'automatically lock' at the non-vandalized revision?
    – user50049
    Commented Jan 22, 2011 at 1:52
  • What @Tim said - worst-case, it gets locked in a bad state waiting for a moderator to intervene. Not the end of the world, but... Raising a moderator flag should be the first thing you do when encountering a persistent vandal, not hanging around trying to hit some rollback cap.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jan 22, 2011 at 2:24
  • 1
    "What you are doing is illegal!"
    – Michael Mrozek
    Commented Jan 22, 2011 at 4:09
  • @Shog just for the record, flagging a mod is what everyone did first yesterday. There just weren't any around for quite some time. Still, I agree that continuous rollbacks aren't the most productive thing to do.
    – Pekka
    Commented Jan 22, 2011 at 10:20
  • @TimPost I proposed to just lock, but one could detect what the "good copy" is by using the post quality metric, or rollbacking to revision 1 :)
    – badp
    Commented Jan 22, 2011 at 12:27
  • Aw man, it never hit the 100th rollback mark. :(
    – Mateen Ulhaq
    Commented Mar 9, 2021 at 8:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .