Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive 3

message: Just a note for anyone paying attention should any of these ideas be implemented: please update the WP:1WW shortcut to point to wherever this is ultimately enacted at (if it is). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:1WW]]

message: As of 04:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it appears there already is an existing "fork" at WP:0RR.  It has not been put to a poll yet, but it also seems to enjoy some degree of consensus.  I'm not sure how we ended up with two redundant proposal pages; this is the first time I've heard of WP:1WW.  I'll discuss this futher below.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactor 

message: There's another similar proposal, started in March, at WP:0RR.  It's somewhat more detailed than the proposals on this page, and somewhat stricter than Locke Cole's proposal.  (My interpretation of John Reid's proposal would be compatible with the 0RR one, but it appears John himself may disagree.)  It's been fairly stable for over a month now.  It hasn't been put to a poll, but there seems to be a rough consensus on the talk page in favor of the latest versions.
Should we put it to a poll and see how it fares compared to the alternatives listed above?  Or is there sufficient consensus to implement it based on discussion alone (since, as we all know, voting is evil)?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Polls are evil, let's avoid one if at all possible. I'll take a look at 0RR more closely tomorrow (I should be asleep now :P) and comment. But I can't imagine it "stricter" being a deal breaker. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 13:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer it (0RR) to anything mentioned on this page. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Admin zero-revert rule" proposal

message: Oh boy, another fork! Apparently some folks got started at Wikipedia:Admin zero-revert rule unaware that WP:1WW has been cooking since early February. I'm going to merge it into this discussion, since the substance is extremely similar. John Reid 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposal came mainly out of a discussion on the ArbCom channel.  Sorry I missed the other one, but nobody told me about it.  It's probably a good thing that the two threads have merged, as I think we need something more than we have now.  Kelly Martin (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoon 

message: According to the proposal, the enforcement will be temporary or even permanent desysopping. Is it a problem that we have very few people capable of imposing such sanctions? Isn't it easier to treat wheel-warring the same way as we treat edit-warring, with short blocks of up to 24 hours? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocks are not an effective way of dealing with abuse of administrative power. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I just did a test myself. It seemed pretty effective. Being blocked knocks out the use of rollback, deletion and protection. Only the blocking seems in tact. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While blocking as a short-term action pending desysoping is a possibility, I think offenses of this nature deserve a more serious penalty than a mere 24 hour block.  Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, so losing it should also be no big deal. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The fundamental flaw of this sort of penalty is that it allows a few select individuals (the Stewards) to supplant the standing consensus of the community. The community made people admins by consensus, it should require a consensus to desysop someone. There are plenty of current admins who could not win an RfA right now.  As long as only a select few (those who get desysopped) must face an RfA while the rest of us slide by without review, you have handed a very subjective power to individuals who were not elected with the clear knowledge that they would be exercising this power. NoSeptember talk 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This rule is only intended to curb abuse of administrator power, not improve the overall quality of administrators. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Determining abuse is a subjective thing.  Should a Steward, who likely got elected because they know multiple languages, be making these decisions?  Especially when the decision will likely be the difference between remaining an admin and being permanently desysopped (because you picked up enemies and can no longer pass RfA)? I would be OK with a temporary desysop with the understanding that the admin would be automatically resysopped after 48 hours or whatever.  But we had people who were "temporarily desysopped" (read the statement made at the time) on Feb. 6, who are now permanently desysopped for all practical purposes.  A temporary sanction is fine, but there is nothing to indicate that such sanctions will indeed be temporary. So the Stewards will become one person ArbComs. We didn't elect Stewards for this. Finally, we are creating an all or nothing penalty, screw up once and you are gone. We treat our vandals better than that. NoSeptember talk 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on enforcability 

message: I suggest changing "Do not repeat any reversed administrative action within 24 hours. (Or a Steward may remove your administrative privileges.)" to "....(Or a Steward will remove your administrative privilages.)".  Comments? --Rebroad 17:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This assumes that Stewards are omniscient.  android79 17:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and never forgive nor use common sense.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  may -> will 

message: The problematic issue with this proposal is the 24 hour limit. The static limit is exactly what allows someone to game to system as discussed in the previous sections above. Somehow, the static limit needs to be removed. — Dzonatas 16:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 hours 

message: It stirkes me that a) we should try and get a policy to sort the situation of bad administrators as opposed to trying to limit their power. We should sort out the root of the cause no the effects of the problem. That said, I think the proposal is a good idea, but like I said, I think that Admins should have a much more stringent oversight. --Wisden17 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary? 

message: There are a number of similar proposals at WP:1WW.  I'm not sure how we ended up with two redundant proposal pages, but somehow we did.  As there's been a proposal to ratify some version of the 1WW proposal, and as this proposal seems to be fairly stable and enjoy some degree of consensus support, I've suggested on the "other" talk page that both proposals be used as basis for the final policy.  Please comment there.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not important how we forked; these things happen. Nobody's to blame and it's not a problem. I'm merging the two together. John Reid 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:1WW 

message: As of 03:44 Saturday, 2006 Apr 22, the straw poll stands at: 
proposal #	author      	support	oppose	support %
1         	Philwelch   	4      	16    	20%
2         	Carnildo    	3      	5     	38%
3         	Theresa     	6      	7     	46%
4         	John Reid   	24     	9     	73%
5         	Locke Cole  	11     	7     	61%
6         	Kelly Martin	3      	3     	50%
7         	Kelly Martin	1      	3     	25%
It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy. I do not suggest in any way that the plurality for version #4 constitutes a mandate for my point of view; rather, I only ask that I be allowed to refactor the existing, competing seven proposals into a single draft. This refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart. John Reid 03:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether it's too late to propose this, but I'd like to suggest a much simpler proposal that, as a rule, administrators should not undo each other's admin actions. Exceptions would be where an unambiguous error had been made by the original admin, or where there is some urgency to the situation and the original admin is not online. If you disagree with an admin's action, discuss the issue with him/her, and if you're unable to make headway, take it to AN/I and wait for a consensus to emerge. But do not take it upon yourself to revert the admin before either agreement or consensus is reached. This is more or less what the current blocking policy says about undoing blocks. We could simply extend this to all admin actions. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support John Reid's suggestion. I also have one of my own: archiving the current page and replacing it with John Reid's proposal, a modified version of Locke Cole's proposal and/or a hybrid of the "most popular and accepted points of all 5 proposals?" It might be good to have an "either or" option to avoid splitting support for a proposal. -- Kjkolb 04:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that this is the real way to solve it. Admin actions shouldn't be undone without discussion in the first place. I do admit that the problem with some of the proposals is that it places the power in the hands of the person that does the first revert. - Taxman Talk 15:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It's the ones willing to make that first revert without discussion who are causing most of the problems, and yet they are precisely the ones most of these proposals will hand the power to. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Look forward to what Phil and John have to offer. Rich  Farmbrough 12:12 22  April 2006 (UTC).
How about doing this on a separate page? That would avoid controversy with people who still want to discuss the individual proposals listed on this one.--Eloquence* 13:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I was tempted to do this; but that's just the kind of forking I think we need to step away from now. John Reid 09:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's refactor 

message: I've just added the following notice to my user and talk pages:
This is not meant to be a criticism of this proposed policy, which I have myself helped draft and generally support, or an attempt to dilute or circumvent it.  I am merely choosing to personally assume good faith on behalf of other admins and to expressly announce a presumption of amity as described in the proposed policy.
It should, of course, go without saying that I will personally follow whatever policy is enacted, without assuming that anyone else will necessarily grant such permission to me as I have done above, and that I will in any case do my best to exercise caution in my admin actions, whether or not they may consitute a revert.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am not infallible 

message: I rm except with community consensus from the policy text. (This was inserted with edit sum Modify summary to match text.) I'm fairly unhappy about it -- I believe in leaving new policy open to editing in general and I don't like to seem the sole defender of my own draft. Please allow me to discuss this edit. 
First, the edit sum itself. The policy is deliberately worded on one line. That's not a summary of the policy: that's the text. Everything else on the page interprets or illuminates this; nothing else has the same force as the text. Note the refactored prior discussions under Commentary: some contradict one another but they all illuminate our joint state of mind as we refine this policy. None have the force of policy itself. I realize that other policies are extremely wordy; lately the fashion has been to head some policies with a summary titled "...in a nutshell". This is not the case here -- and indeed, I think these policies are not particularly well worded. The more words a law contains, the more crevices left to shelter lawyers. 
Community consensus is, of course, our highest organizational principle. It trumps all other policies at all times. But it is rather risky to make explicit exceptions to lesser policies. It is all too easy for a malefactor to claim But I had community consensus behind my actions! Consensus is just one of those things, like good music: All know it when they see it but everyone has a different opinion of what it is. 
I suggest that the desire to leave loopholes like this stems from the all-too-prevalent feeling that if I don't fix this, it won't get fixed. Unfortunately this is exactly the good intention that leads to bitter wheel wars. 
I do think this clause is a pretty big risk -- but if the community insists on it, I'll not demand its removal. I'm just me. John Reid 06:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community Consensus 

message: This is one of the worst recipes for wikilawyering I've seen, because it's so complex. I've removed the policy summary because it's not clear what it even means, and you seem to be trying to come up with a novel definition of wheel war, whereby the admin who starts is may do so, but any subsequent admin is only allowed to undo once? Is that it?
It's particularly important that the wording be simple and clear (and fair) if people might be penalized. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone please tell me what exactly is wrong with what the current blocking policy says, viz. do not undo another admin's actions (the exception being if there has been an unambiguous error and the blocking admin is not available). What could be simpler than that? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the intro in an effort to keep it simpler, and to make it consistent with the blocking policy and protection policy, but the other sections are a nightmare. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I thought it was rather complicated myself. "No admin shall" blah blah was too hard to understand at first glance. But I guess that's why admins have to go through RfA and everything. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 05:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikilawyering

message: The temptation to move this to Proposed wheel warring policy ON WHEELS!!! is so strong! -- Saaber 07:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, too obvious. 

message: No admin shall repeat any admin action in the knowledge that another admin opposes it.
Slim Virgin deleted the entire policy (!) as shown above with edit sum I strongly disagree with that summary; see talk. I really think I've done enough here and it's somebody else's turn -- but I'd suggest that we either reinsert the policy statement into the policy page or insert a new policy statement. 
As I've said before, the boxed text is intended to be the policy, not a summary of that policy. Only this text is intended to have the force of policy; all else is explanation and commentary, with lesser force. Without any actual policy statement, this page now looks to me like a wheel without an axle upon which to turn. John Reid 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a go at it, but this page is mostly dead. =/ Kotepho 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy 

message: The scope of an admin's action is a critical factor in our evaluation of a charge of wheel warring. Factors in aggravation or mitigation may include, but are not limited to: 
* Time: Actions which are repeated within minutes or hours are more serious than those repeated within weeks; actions repeated within months or years may not be actual violations at all. 
::If it was years ago, do you even know that it still opposed?  Kotepho 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh? Kotepho 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, mostly "common sense" and does not help clarify things. Kotepho 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter if you are talking civilly while blocking and unblocking constantly, it is still bad.   Not sure what this does to further the policy. Kotepho 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, duh and unhelpful. Kotepho 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto. Kotepho 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: True, but isn't this obvious? If it isn't, shouldn't we just make the policy part more obvious than adding this in this "mitigating circumstances" or whatever it is section. Kotepho 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure what the point of this is. Kotepho 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Same as "single action:" above. Kotepho 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: More duh.  If you say "oh, sorry, I thought we worked this out." and continue discussion all is roses.  Enough with the "defense against a charge levied" stuff, it is too legalistic. Kotepho 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aggravation, mitigation, and defense" 

message: * Move this page to Wikipedia:Wheel war policy and change tag to . This now has wide acceptance. While there may still be room for improvement in the details it's clear that nobody endorses wheel warring. 
On a personal note, I'd like to thank the many editors who contributed to this proposal. This was not created overnight nor was it the pet project of one or two editors. Much was written, much was debated, much was hacked away, and much rewritten. The people who contributed here did not all agree on every point but in the end we all managed to hammer out something we can live with. 
I believe an example has been set here that we would do well to follow in our dealings with other troublesome issues. John Reid 03:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline 

message: ::See, I don't like the 'it isn't a wheel war if each admin only reverts once' form at all. It seems to me to allow all the negative elements of wheel-warring to take place and only stops when one 'side' runs out of people willing to 'edit war' rather than discussing. On the big conflagrations which led to this policy/guideline effort you'd have twenty admins on either side... and some of those who 'only acted once' were desysopped. I much prefer treating it like any other dispute... if people disagree talk about it and get consensus before taking another action. As to a merge... well both pages agree that multiple reverts are bad, so as you say we could have the page cover the common ground and then list the different perspectives on the less obvious cases. --CBD 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow motion WW