Wikipedia:Version to protect

Why this proposed guideline is needed

Wikipedia has no guideline on what action administrators should take in the event of an edit war. Neutral admins will often protect a page regardless of which version is currently displayed. Admins that sympathise with one side of a debate have more of a tendency to wait until the page is reverted to that version and then protect it.

Cases where this guideline can be applied

A clear case of disputed change, where one version of a page has been accepted for a long period of time, and one editor comes along to change it and is opposed.

What should be done

In clear-cut cases as described above, the long-term original version of the page should always be protected, and the editor seeking to make a change should have to bring forward a good argument for making the change. If no such argument is made, the proposed change should not be allowed, and the editor should be advised that if he continues to press for such a change, he may be blocked. Exhausting community patience is a valid, though rarely and hesitantly used block reason, and an editor pressing for a particular point in spite of better arguments for conservatism is a case of this.

When this does not apply

This proposed guideline does not extend to cases where both editors are seeking a change over the previous version - only where one editor is conservative. It also does not apply when one change that concerns the same aspect of the page is shortly followed by another change affecting the same aspect. The definition of "shortly" follows the activity profile of the second editor, that is, if the editor has not been active for a week while the first change was made, and when he returns, makes the second change as one of his first, this would count as "shortly". This rationale does not apply to new user accounts or established sockpuppets.