Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive 4

message: Prior to this merged version, wheel warring was discussed on several different pages. Besides talk pages and a number of lesser pages, this page -- under this title -- described wheel warring in general terms. A feeling arose that a more strictly worded restriction on wheel warring was demanded; this led to a workshop originally titled Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy. This developed 7 different wordings which merged into a single wheel war guideline. Meanwhile, the original page evolved and grew. 
Unaddressed until now has been the question of what we are doing with two different pages that speak to the same issue. Various editors called for a merger, which I have indeed completed. The key concern with merger was that each former page contained radically different wording. I believe the solution is to understand that each former page spoke to the wheel warring issue from different angles. Neither contradicted the other. Rather, one page attempted to guide admins away from wheel warring with terms subject to interpretation; application of such guidelines require mature judgement and use of balancing tests. The other page set a bright-line rule: touch it and you "die". 
Forgive a lifelong graphic designer if I see things in graphic terms. Admins are permitted a great range of actions (not to scale). Some of these are unwise and quite possibly forbidden by other policies; some of these are reverts of other admins. These do not always overlap; an admin might block a user with whom he's had a content dispute; or an admin might unblock a blocked IP after hearing a plea from another user at the same dorm. When they do overlap, though, it's a sign of real trouble. Somewhere within the overlap area is wheel warring, as defined by this page's guidelines; this may very well be subject to sanctions but the definition is a bit fuzzy. Finally, there is a certain very definite type of action clearly forbidden by policy. 
I have used the terms policy and guidelines here to indicate the relatively strict and lax natures of the two sections. Both former pages achieved guideline status before the move and I have retained the tag; I expect this to pass into Wikipedia official policy in time. Meanwhile, I hope nobody feels the need to try to rename these two sections; the terms are familiar, therefore understood by the casual reader. The intent is to suggest that when a given action is prohibited under the policy section it is really not subject to much debate. While the provisions of the guidelines section are very widely accepted, the truth is that in any given wheel war, some significant faction will claim they do not apply to them. This subtlety is best conveyed with the two short words; any explanation is almost surely to be ignored in the heat of the moment -- which is the time when clear understanding is key. We hope that even seriously upset admins will recognize that they are crossing a bright line when they violate policy. 
For clarity, two large sections are broken out onto subpages: 
; Wheel war/Commentary: This preserves some trenchant comments on the subject of wheel warring from several discussions; also, prior versions are here linked. [Note - this has been moved to above (1st section) and oriignal page deleted]
; Wheel war/Examples: This includes a list of hypothetical cases as they pertain to bright-line 0WW and summaries of several ArbCom proceedings in which wheel warring was cited.
Note also the talk page archive index at Wheel war/Archive. 
This merger is an important stage in a long-running effort by a great many editors; I, personally, have worked hard on it. Yet it is not "finished". I expect editors to express their concerns directly and, if necessary, edit this page. John Reid 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: As noted on the village pump, this page should be policy since it's both actionable and consensual, it's a pretty clear case of "don't do that", and has already been upheld by several arbcom decisions. I've put a  up so that we can discuss the wording. I'd be happy to hear people's opinions on, or objections to, this. (Radiant) 13:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  MeatballWiki is the metawiki of them all. The central discussion revolves around how to run a wiki and is required reading for anybody interested in Wikipedia major policy issues. It does not itself have much in the way of rules and discussion sprawls out, sometimes into irrelevancy. If you hunt through the pages, though, you find a lot of real gems. John Reid ° 07:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the purpose of Meatball Wiki, but not the relevance of the linked page to this particular policy. --tjstrf talk 11:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I likewise am aware of Meatball and have read quite a bit of it, but fail to see what you refer to at this point. (Radiant) 15:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? -Toptomcat 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me rephrase that.  Can you please clarify your meaning, Mr. Reid? -Toptomcat 19:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy 

message: Above, I've tried to explain in some detail why this topic is broken into two different, though overlapping categories of offense. The terms in the first degree and in the second degree are very common in law and well understood; if they haven't been used in other policies, perhaps it's because our community feels that they are all-or-nothing rules and all infractions are equal. I derive the two clases of forbidden action directly from the two pages which I merged; each stood as a guideline for some time, each prohibited some actions and called them wheel wars; but they forbade different things and did so in different ways. I don't think they ever did conflict but I have preserved the distinction as an honest reflection of our record in labeling and reacting to these threats to public order. Please hang onto the terms; they are needed. Otherwise, it's difficult for somebody to say, clearly, that Admin A violated this policy at some time, in some place "in the second degree but not in the first". Thank you. John Reid ° 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better still, you simply explain exactly what they did it in plain english. Call it "disruptive wheel warring", or "protracted wheel warring", or use any other term that's not unparseable idiomatic jargon to outsiders. I have no issue with the concepts of first and second degree inherently, but a huge issue with that specific terminology. --tjstrf talk 11:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, people who aren't versed in law are likely to not have heard of them. WP:NOT a bureaucracy, avoid needless complication. What we need is a single definition of "wheel warring", not two; otherwise editors will just get confused since most of them aren't used to legalese. (Radiant) 15:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Commonly used legal terms or not, they're utterly non-intuitive and resulted in an inconsistent policy. All policies should be written in as consistent and simple a manner as humanly possible. The word bright-line is similarly esoteric, can we say clear-cut instead? --tjstrf talk 11:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: Summary of high-water marks in development of this policy: 
*  -- First version of article. 
*  -- First instance of project page. 
*  -- First definition version. 
*  -- First version advanced as guideline. 
*  -- Often-cited comment by Jimbo. 
*  -- First version that mentions a specific sanction. 
*  -- First version of balancing test that reaches toward bright-line rule. 
*  -- First version of bright-line rule. 
*  -- "Seven forks" version/straw poll; the mature state of prior discussion. 
*  -- First merge of bright-line rule. 
*  -- State of bright-line rule when merger proposed.  
*  -- Last version of balancing test version before merge. 
*  -- In my opinion, the last "good" version -- although open to improvement. 
* Wheel war -- Current article. 
John Reid ° 08:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I still want to hear, first, what my fellow editors want as an alternate pair of terms for bright-line rule and balancing test. Then, I would like to hear criticism of the points and proposals I have made. Thank you. John Reid ° 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your opinion, Hiding. Now, will you please tell me what you want me to call these two things so we can discuss them like gentlemen. Thank you. John Reid ° 22:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to talk 

message: Due to John's inability to meaningfully and civilly discuss issues with anyone else, in addition to his bizarre and verbose attempts to force everyone to only discuss John's personal objections within his personal framework, as well as the general futility of further engaging with this personality, I feel it's necessary to say the following:
John Reid, your objections have been noted. That is all. Philwelch 05:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any time you're ready to discuss substantive issues directly, you're welcome to come back. Thanks for coming in. John Reid ° 08:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final response to John Reid 

message: Sorry for the rushed comments and new section, but here are some thoughts: my general feeling is that it would be best to decide on something (fairly lax), and then let people follow their own (stricter) guidelines if they want. A bit like the 3RR versus 1RR thing. It should be common sense really. Be civil and discuss things, rather than edit warring, even if the actions happen to be admin actions. Oh, and investigate before taking admin actions, and thus prevent slow wheel wars. Any deciding on a guideline is better than another few years with nothing. Carcharoth 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your opinon, Carcharoth. Now will you please respect my simple wish that you tell me what language you wish me to use when discussing these issues. Then, I'd like you kindly to respond to the specific points I've made. I don't think it's too much to ask. This is, I hope, rational discusion. John Reid ° 22:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the language you are using, but this is like a lame style edit war. The language used really doesn't matter, as long as it says the same thing. I can't really respond to the other stuff until I've had time to read all this in more detail. I've never really looked at these pages much before this week. Carcharoth 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts 

message: Debate here appears to have died down. It has been argued that this was a policy before the rewording, and also that it should be a policy after the rewording, because it appears to be generally agreed upon that wheel warring is a Bad Thing. Is it time to put the official tag there? Or do people think it's not official enough and a guideline would be better? Or are the further comments as to the wording? (Radiant) 09:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In conclusion?