Hi, I had an idea about something that might target the problem of edit warring. It's discussed here in the idea lab, and could have various use cases, although I think the best is regarding edit warring.
In my mind this works really well but I'm very new and am unsure of the wider implications or the resources required. So users are encouraged to use proposed edits when making an edit that is controversial or likely to be controversial. As of now, an editor notices a perceived injustice and makes an edit, which may be biased or worded badly due to their own personal bias, but nevertheless a progression; the editor has achieved their goal of getting the change published. Another editor strongly objects to this edit, due to its bad wording or content, and this second editor reverts it; i.e. a regression, with the second editor furthering their goal, possibly in defence of quality control. This frustrates the initial editor as they had already achieved their objective, and the regression antagonizes them, and they try to force it back the way it was. It's this tug of war--facilitated by the binary of published and unpublished--that creates edit wars. Proposed edits make the entire journey one constant progression and counter the binary nature of publishing (which sometimes facilitates "us vs them" conflict), provided the reverter collaborates, and the initial editor is familiar with the various dispute resolutions like 3O and RfCs.
I don't know if that's an accurate description of the nature of edit warring. I can only speak from minimal experience. I think 'proposed edits' could make Wikipedia less combative and possibly generate more constructive discussion, but it might have a limited effect. I would be interested in hearing editors' thoughts and other ideas/plans/actions regarding this problem. Thank you for reading.