Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Archive/12

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Invasive controlling of User's space

I have nowhere else to go with this problem. I'd like the community to please lmk the feelings about this situation. Please have a look at how Amgine and MrM, 2 editors with whom I have had considerable disputes, are now claiming they are the "community" and are sabatoging an idea (after I put a lot of work into the idea) that Amgine actually came up with, as you see from this edit.

Now they are teaming up to bury(censor) this idea as you can see here Please lmk what your opinions are and whether this arbitrary control over my user space is within our policy latitutes. Neutralizer 19:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We are members of the community, and I, at least, have no issue with your user space. I do have an issue with your linking your user space to this community space as a form of harrassment of other members of this community. I also have an issue with your inability to keep your word to members of this community regarding this and other issues of community collaboration. - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Btw: in what way does this address policy? - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry,Amgine, I'm not going to fall into a deflective argument about terminology trap. I want to see what other, more objective editors think about this issue. Neutralizer 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean you want to start an intifada again. No, not this time. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Neut, keeping a running list of edits you think are disruptive is a useful record for accomplishing what? The attempt to use the list in the past to support a de-admin vote has led nowhere. I support keeping the list, but a community flag is not needed until something actionable can come out of it. Edbrown05 22:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't enter this discussion except to say that I remember a discussion with Eloquence where Neutralizer agreed to move the list off-wiki. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Chiacomo, I'm sure you recall when Amgine came up with the flag idea and you were kind enough to actually construct the first "flag". I will yield to the community view on this; but I don't like the way Amgine and MrM come in as a posse to kill it. I think it's a harmless tool and I remember when you said you were "following" it yourself; but I will stop keeping it if most feel like Ed does. Neutralizer 22:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not terribly concerned about it one way or the other... I just remember your telling Eloquence that you'd remove the list. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee Elections 2006

Dear Wikinewsies,

as you may be aware, a proposal was recently created for a "de-editing" (long term blocking) procedure based on an open voting process (Wikinews:Editors). This has led to a discussion on Wikinews talk:Editors, in which a consensus emerged that such a procedure is not desirable, and that an arbitration committee is generally more flexible and less likely to lead to long term division in the community. Even those who oppose these kinds of instruments will hopefully be able to agree that it is the "lesser of the two evils".

Amgine has worked on the Wikinews:Arbitration Committee policy, and now there's an open page to nominate and select the first 5 members of the committee: Wikinews:Arbitration Committee elections 2006. Please consider nominating a fellow Wikinewsie you trust to the committee. The election will start today at 20:00 UTC (time conversion) unless there are significant objections. I hope we can find a broad consensus to move forward, as I believe it will greatly help in fairly resolving future disputes that we cannot solve by other means.--Eloquence 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the election is now running, if there are no objections, I'll put it into the site notice tomorrow.--Eloquence 22:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Aribtration election results

I'm pleased to announce the members of the first Wikinews Arbitration Committee:

Congratulations! Hopefully you won't have any work to do. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for taking the job! Neutralizer 01:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing published stories

A lively discussion on this talk page has brought up the issue of when, if ever, published stories may be edited. One of the participating editors is of the determined view that published articles should not be touched after being published and any edit is in "violation" of WN:NOT(sec.5). I am of the opinion that the inclusion of the word "continue" in WN:NOT(sec.5) means (to me) the articles should not be changed on an ongoing basis, but does not mean that they should never be changed at all; and the inclusion of the phrase; "Especially, they should not be altered to an angle or POV" tells me there is a little wiggle room for post publishing editing (otherwise there would be no need for this extra limitation). Still another editor seems to feel it's ok to add to a published article but not subtract from it. Since these 3 differing interpretations/opinions are quite exclusive of each other; perhaps we can reach a consensus here and, if necessary, adjust our existing policy wording accordingly? Neutralizer 02:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before. It states what it states; this has been the site policy longer than you have been around. You haven't had a problem with it before, so I am asking you: what are you bringing up and why are you bringing it up, especially at this time? The articles are editable for proof-check, that is making sure quotes are correct and in context, spelling and grammatical checks, attributing sources if not previously done, adding/changing categories, but NEVER should be touched after a few days, unless for a reason above. "New" information should not be added after that. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Everyone agrees that "New" information should not be added; but, to clarify, what is your opinion concerning information that was available at the time of publishing-which is what the discussion referenced was about? Neutralizer 03:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that if the article has been published and generally stable for a couple of days, then any new information, regardless of when that information was available, should go into a new article. - Borofkin 03:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comrade, Fellow, or whichever title preferred, MrMiscellanious, to possibly explain why this matter might now be worthy of discussion it is at least also my own observation that the frequency of reversions on the basis of this rule has increased lately. Perhaps this is a matter to discuss to ensure that the community still supports such a rule, and also to clarify what interpretations are agreed communally as intended by the rule. We must communally prevent misinterpretations of its intent in order to make sure that articles are being published when they are are fit for what ever status they are provided by being published. If they are to never to be edited again, I believe that generally the date before publishing should be mandated to delay some length of time after the last edits or comments on talk pages are made to prevent the use of publishing to impose false resolutions on disputed items. If when published an article remains open to edits with particular qualifications, as adding clarification on specific matters by pure addition of absolutely relevant information for example, a lesser delay of time would be appropriate. Also, if publishing is permanent and forbidding all further edits or those without extremely limited purpose only, perhaps we should attempt to request a third status be implemented in the site code for those articles near publishing that might be intermediary between the status permanent publishing and that of developing and subject to deletion if post activity is ever delayed to prevent false resolutions from being imposed. Aside, as communities change over time perhaps it should be common practice to annually or quarterly review all policies to ensure continued community support. Opalus 03:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Opalus, what? -Edbrown05 03:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Second Edbrown05's comments. Keep 'em concise, or I fall asleep reading them. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Was a fast breaking story, CNN interview had nothing to do with the deputy national security advisor talking about a bin ladin tape. -Edbrown05 04:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
will someone who has been around longer than i've been around (and therefore knows everything) explain to me the rationale for preserving specifically the pov of a published article for posterity. an earlier call for explanation appears to have gone unnoticed.
why would it be forbidden to add, a day or two (or three? ...) after publication, factual content, available before the date of publication, solely because it might alter the pov of the published article? Doldrums 05:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Where sourced prior to the day of publication and added without subtracting from an article, it is not a problem per se. However, it should not alter the general character of the article. If an article is a brief regarding breaking news, altering that article into an in-depth or investigative article is fundamentally altering the character of the reporting. It is extremely difficult to avoid future bias when writing about a historical event, even when only sources current to the time are used. It is far better to simply not alter them.
The rational for doing this is simple: Wikinews articles serve as primary historical source documents. Wikipedia and other projects link to Wikinews archives because they indicate what was known, thought, and believed at the specific point in time. Unlike most online news archives, Wikinews archives are entirely available, and serve as permanent links to documents recording history as it happened. "Creating" historic documents days, months, years after the events directly detracts from the value of the archives collection because such articles do not reflect the exact knowledge base of reporters at that time. - Amgine | talk en.WN 05:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The argument that Wikinews archives indicates what was known, thought, and believed at the specific point in time; is a good argument FOR editing to add information that was known at the time but not dealt with in the original article, don't you think? Neutralizer 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have written on suggestions for revisions of policy as prompted by meeting opposition to a previously approved addition of the name of the village in which the strike occurred that was referenced as missing from the tape in that article. Neutralizer's dispute is separate but both ultimate attempts for article editing after an imposed publishing date were reverted by users on the grounds of supposed violation of the WN:NOT policy and clarified to be violating policy by simply being edits made after that imposed publishing date.

I dispute the validity of the interpretation of the WN:NOT policy used to revert those edits and the appropriateness of the incomplete scope that it currently covers. Specifically, I find the length of time following the imposed publishing that later edits were considered to be in violation to be arbitrarily decided and suggest as an alternative to the current policy one detailing the circumstance in which an article may be edited after publishing and when it may be rewritten to reflect a later publishing date to include additional information without dispute be put to a vote. Total implications of publishing and requirements for the fitness of an article to become a historical record are likely to become separate policies. The current varied interpretations of the WN:NOT only confuse the status of articles that have been published by inconsistently allowing and refusing modifications.

I declare opposition to allowing articles to attain a status of permanent and absolutely unalterable status when given the current published status as the current policies are not precise and on the basis that policy conformity is more important than avoiding the work of rewriting date sensitive references for later publishing. I agree with Doldrums and support the allowance of advancement to that level after a period that the community must decide on in which the article may be further edited for dispute resolution and for improving accuracy. Alternatively, I would support the creation of a third status that places articles not ready for publishing away from the threat of deletion present in the developing status that in the event of editing interruptions leads to deletion on the basis that as the article will become a historical document after it attains some as yet undecided form of relatively static state that may only be edited under limited circumstances. For the fairness conventions to be upheld, publishing must not be allowed to be made into a method to suppress dispute resolution as fairness requires that time must be provided to more completely ensure that interested parties have been satisfied before the article enters that future defined more static state by imposing a mandated length of complete inactivity or absolute resolution on all issues before an article may be given that static state.

Apologies, I find that terseness only lends to incompleteness and error so I have stated what was said before in as simple language as I find effective. Was the confusion described before not caused by the relative impreciseness of the previous post yet hidden behind those calls for conciseness amidst increased accusations requiring address? Opalus 06:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • At this point, two editors with different interpretations of WN:NOT(SEC.5) were both citingWN:NOT(SEC.5) as the basis for reverting edits. Amgine is saying adding information is sometimes acceptable; "...Where sourced prior to the day of publication and added without subtracting from an article, it is not a problem per se." and MrM. is saying; "....NEVER should be touched after a few days;".The current conflicting interpretations, when held by some who are imposing their interpretations (REVERT... THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE EDITED, AS PER WN:NOT) with threats [1], may be avoidable if the community will confirm an interpretation or make the policy less ambiguous.
  • On the other hand it is ok to retain an ambiguous policy if people who hold varying interpretations are not imposing their own interpretation on others via threats (as is the current status of this article[2]).
  • Therefore, if editing priviledges are to mean anything, either we need to agree upon a clear and concise interpretation or we need to jealously guard the right of editors to edit free from unwarranted threats and blocks; at least that's how I see it. Neutralizer 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I gave my reason, and clearly. And I still stand by my decision to revert. Wikinews is NOT an encyclopedia. This story was BREAKING news when it was published and dated. No edits of this kind or any for that matter took place for about 3 days.

Given that fact, the article should NOT be edited, as the news is old, not read as frequently as the new news and therefore could result in conflicting edits and beliefs. It simply should not be edited. I just think in this particular case, the policy should stand and the article should NOT be changed...in ANY form other than what policy states. Jason Safoutin 15:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Safoutin. As I understand your post, it is your view that the course of this discussion should be to clarify precisely what the policy does state and to modify the statement of policy to include that to aid in avoiding improper edits. Can we create a project to write a guide on community approved types of edits allowed on published articles then? A list of at least the guiding characteristics for the currently ambiguously defined types of edits if not also specific examples of what sort of edits are approved after publishing? Policy reform in this sense seems to be winning out in this preliminary discussion. On that, my general views have been previously described. Are there any other ideas on methods to reform the policy to avoid future conflict on interpretations? Where should such project be started to allow it to be made into a formal proposal to be put to a community vote? Opalus 20:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Where do you see a threat? The user was warned prior to my revert. Jason Safoutin 15:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[3] Neutralizer 15:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I will be brief, which is in start contrast to Opalus who seems to prefer a volume of words intended to discourage reading.
If something is three or four days old, it should not be edited, unless it has spent that entire time in a develop stage. If it has been published for more than 12-24 hours with no edits or objections I would be extremely wary of making any edits. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian McNeil, does that exclude spelling correction and link correction and other format and maintenances edits? Is it then decided that the limit past which a published article is not to be modified is exactly two or exactly three days as determined by date transition of the site measure of time after the last develop-publish transition that was not contested during that time? Are edits to specify formerly relative time phrases or addition of clarifying information for purpose of reference accuracy also prohibited despite secondary goal of articles serving as historical documents? It is clarification in policy of exactly this sort that I seek. Opalus 20:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No it does not exclude spelling and link correction, but I fear you are seeking excuses to edit articles that have stayed in a certain state for a reasonable period of time. I will be, per policy, protecting all articles that are a month old effective from the first of next month. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not seek excuse. For the record, my part in the past dispute was only to add location clarification in at first a format for simple reading and after discussion with Amgine only to add the location clarification. I believed policy clarification was in order to prevent future complications from arising in that type of situation as differing administrators gave different interpretations of policy allowing and forbidding that. In the future improvement if edits are made to published articles and if a dispute occurs either withdrawal of efforts at improvement or rewrite of relative date phrases and inclusion of information with updated publishing date will be done. For this course, there has not been any complication yet. That will be my practice until a future reform of policy specifically forbids it. Opalus 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

summary; Ok; at this point it appears to me that the community is split between;

1.Only grammatical corrections allowed to published articles after 24 hours and

2.It's also ok to add information which was available at the time the article was published.

Anyone else have an opinion? Neutralizer 11:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll read thru this tomorrow and then comment, have not got time right now :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 12:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, this whole discussion is pure instruction creep bull****. People must modify published stories all the time, including tagging POV articles. But we must not allow ourselves to be revisionist. Between these two extremes it'll have to be worked out by the editors, even occasionally by majority vote if needs be. Here is a direction for future compromises:

  1. Allow a revisions section at the bottom of the article which provides links to past versions which were published for any extended period of time, and whose depublication was disputed.
  2. Add partial retraction lines more often, i.e. lines explaining that some thing or viewpoint was incorrect or not representative.

Instruction creep is bad, new techniques for wiki-compromise are good. Nyarlathotep 14:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Nyarlathotep's suggestion above. I don't like instructions either. Perhaps we just have to live with some articles' final wording being imposed with a threat, as is the case with this article:[4]. No process is perfect. Neutralizer 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that this is not something we can come up with hard and fast rules for, what's likely to happen is the discouragement of edits to published articles where the edit substantially changes the tone/content of the article – and in those cases what we currently have as policy will be cited. We have a few new contributors who've latched onto this for articles that they've effectively felt a sense of ownership over, look at the Hamas election victory as a counterexample. This was marked as breaking which - I think - means there is a fair warning the story may change. There were a lot of stories edits post-publication, and it perhaps needs a "last updated on" message on it for when it ends up archived. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
A "last significant updated on" message is a nice way to minimize revisionism, but the U.S. airstrike article needed a "previous significant versions" message too, as it might have helped keep said egos in check. Nyarlathotep 16:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign language sources

There seem to be a lot of foreign language sources poping up, e.g. Google removes German BMW from search results and Danish and Austrian embassies in Tehran attacked. Do we have a policy on these, or has it been discussed previously? It seems that using a source that is in a language other than English violates Wikinews:Cite sources, which states: "Only published sources that someone else could reasonably be able to check can be used". If a foreign language source is used, then it is up to the contributor who used it to verify that the information is actually there, which means that it is original reporting. - Borofkin 23:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of non-English sources does not necessarily mean 'Original reporting', but it does raise issues of fact checking. -Edbrown05 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't understand why it is "original reporting" when one uses a foreign language source, philosophically speaking the language should not make a difference. I believe that it is important to principally allow the use of foreign language sources, because that will add to the international appeal of the English language wikinews. For practical purposes I suggest that whenever foreign language sources are used,
  • the editor that added them details what information came for the foraign language source on the discussion page (in the case that only some of the sources are foreign language), and
  • at least one other editor verifies the information (maybe we can have a "foreign language flag" that the verifying editor can remove...)
--vonbergm 00:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Its not original reporting, other editors must be entirely responcible for reading sources for themselves, no matter what the source langauge is. Not doing so is frequently a violation of Assume Good Faith, and is almost always simple laziness. Anyone can run most foreign langauge documents through free online translation software (list). Google itslef has Chinese, Koren, and Japanese, plus all the usual suspects. Arabic [5], Farsi, Hindi, Indonesian, Russian, Romanian, Finnish all have sites for translation. You can also ask friends who speak said langauge to comment, you are involved in a wikimedia foundation project for crying out loud! Nyarlathotep 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modification to three revert rule blocking policy

I propose that we modify the Three revert rule blocking policy. The changes I would like to see are:

  1. The 3RR violation must be listed on Admin action alerts prior to blocking. This applies even if the person doing the listing is an admin. Links to all diffs must be included.
  2. If the person doing the listing is an admin, they should make every effort to find another admin to do the blocking. If no other admin is available, they may block themselves, assuming they have met the requirements of point (3)
  3. It is mandatory for the person doing the listing to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down.

I find 3RR violations very confusing, and it is not always clear what is a revert and what isn't. For this reason I think it is completely unnaceptable for a person involved in a revert war to also perform the blocking. - Borofkin 06:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I support point 1 of the above, especially. I have placed a "template" on WN:ALERT for this purpose. Points 2 and 3 should not be mandatory -- especially if the lister is not involved in editing the article. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Point 2 isn't mandatory - it just encourages an admin who is involved in a dispute to find another admin. Point 3 is just my own personal quest. - Borofkin 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I support the revision provided the current secondary arguments on conditions, enforcement, etc. are retained in as close to the prior community agreed to forms as possible provided the revision. Aside, might something similar to condition that entering detailed discussion with the disputing editor(s) regarding the disputed information on the talk page resets the reversion count for the day for that article for subject issues that were made prior to the onset or perhaps the end of the discussion or some other allowance for negotiations of content in quickly developed articles also be added? 06:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Opalus
I support the revision - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's only catering to those who knowingly violated the policy. What we should be talking about here is giving extended amounts of time to repeat vandals, otherwise they know what block they're getting and will accept that time. I find this proposal to be of the utmost useless purposes, and do not see how it would help the situation at hand. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 11:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The situation at hand? I'm not terribly concerned about the situation at hand. It will work itself out. Complainants should work through WN:DISPUTE with repeat offenders -- or the 3RR policy should be revised (which I do not support). This proposal will simplify the matter. If submitted to public scrutiny as described, 3RR violations should be obvious to all. --Chiacomo (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I support the revision. --vonbergm 16:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I also Support the revision. Jason Safoutin 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Chiacomo here, the first step should be a requirement, the other two advised steps. However, 3RR is a sub-set of "site disruption" so I believe the listing in step one should be accompanied by a note of previous 3RR violations and repeat offenders can be blocked for longer than 24 hours if it is clear prior blocks have not deterred their disruptive behaviour. This may require the archiving of 3RR violations. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Requiring these things on a clear-cut policy violation is not going to solve anything; TEA is not a policy... it shouldn't be included in policy requirements. I do not support this. Additionally, delaying Admin actions does not help anyone... therefore, they should not be required to be posted on ALERT. Third, 3RR are clear and cut. Admins block only if there is policy for them, and for 3RR, there is. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this "proposal". --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What of modifying #1 to reflect that the listing is a matter of record keeping instead, that then blocking may be done as usual and that the added requirement is the posting of specific justifications on basis of policy for review within some length of time shorter than the block was for, if the block is for 24 hours then to require posting a report within 12 hours to the action alerts? On the aspect of tea, it does seem irrelevant, but as many are often eager to point out, this is a community so standing grudges are not beneficial and tea is a means to potentially reduce the possibility of that sort of thing. Opalus 20:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think that the blocking admin must post to WN:ALERT BEFORE blocking, but that the admin should post to WN:ALERT in a timely fashion. For no other reason than to educate users what a revert actually is, this would be a useful excercise. We are encouraged as editors and administrators to educate other editors -- especially when they fall afoul of policy. Please consider that this will actually help SOLIDIFY 3RR blocks -- if the evidence is documented clearly and concisely, other admins will be less likely to reverse a block. I only support the first portion of this proposal -- the other two should be more "commons sense". --Chiacomo (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. This proposal is about clearly documenting the offence, nothing more. If 3RR violations are "clear and cut", as MrM says, then it should be no problem to list them on WN:ALERT in conjunction with the block. I only propose point 2 and 3 because blocking in these situations seems to create so much ill-feeling, which is never helpful. - Borofkin 22:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
My recent listing of SiP's 3RR on WN:ALERT worked well -- for me at least. Where previously had I had been usure if a 3RR violation had occured, I was, after posting the diffs, quite sure. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem of admins putting them there, I just don't think it should be required. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is on precisely this matter that was, at least in my interpretation, the paramount of the suggestion that has received rather wide support so far. Expansion of the 3RR to include particular record requirement that for 3RR based blocks the changes made composing those violating four reverts of the same information must be logged at some point after the act (as seems now to be the favored form rather than the initial before the act) to be used in discussions on the 3RR based block specifically. Opalus 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I will refuse to do such. If users want proof, it's in the article history; and that's good enough for providing a record. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Opalus, I hope you don't take offence, but I feel obliged to tell you that I have great difficulty understanding your contributions to these discussions, and I've started to skip over the things that you write. Is there any chance you could say things in a simpler style, perhaps using shorter sentences? As an example, the sentence "Expansion of the 3RR to include particular record requirement that for 3RR based blocks the changes made composing those violating four reverts of the same information must be logged at some point after the act (as seems now to be the favored form rather than the initial before the act) to be used in discussions on the 3RR based block specifically" would take me about half an hour to deconstruct in order to discover its meaning. - Borofkin 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If it is "there in the article history", then why is there so much confusion as to whether a violation has occurred? Why was there a dispute between admins yesterday about whether a violation had occurred? All of these disuputes and squabbles would dissapear if if the four offending diff's were posted to a page for all to see. - Borofkin 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And they already are - the history. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, if a user doesn't give reasons for the revert it is pretty difficult to track the changes in the history - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, more simple sentences now as that is the convention in place of specificity. Why refuse? That there are disputes shows that to be inadequate. The small effort of linking to the necessary differences in a report posted to the alert page is certainly less effort than endlessly repeating disputes on it, no? Added to policy it will be policy to do so. Opalus 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, MrMiscellanious, all the reverts are there in the history. However, contributors are only human, with limited mental capacity and limited time. If the blocking admin can clearly see the 3RR violation, then to prevent any confusion, they should post the four diffs for all to see. Ideally this would happen voluntarily, however it hasn't been happening so far, therefore it should be made policy. - Borofkin 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, no it shouldn't. I will post them if users want to see, all they have to do is ask. But I'm not going to waste time posting them if no one wants to see, and we ideally shouldn't be wasting space nor that time if no one is going to ask for them anyways. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I support this proposal. (Although I doubt you can force tea, that would be nice too) Bawolff ☺☻image:smile.png 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I support 1 and 2 of Borofkin's proposal; I myself was subject to a mistaken call on 3RR block once; and portion 2 of the proposal (up to the cup of tea requirement) certainly makes sense for avoiding acrimony between the blocker and blockee, it seems to me. Neutralizer 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To resolve your objection, MrMiscellaneous, a few questions. How long does it take to identify a violation of 3RR, what is involved in it? Would the addition of the extra step of copying the addresses of the difference summaries of the four reverts add any appreciable amount of time to this process? A template or simple example of a report utilizing those links could be provided, one consisting of such as follows:

Basis Description: <summary detail of information said to be the subject of the four reverts>
Revert 1: <link to difference summary of revert #1>
Revert 2: <link to difference summary of revert #2>
Revert 3: <link to difference summary of revert #3>
Revert 4: <link to difference summary of revert #4>

With this sort of report all that is required is copying address of difference summaries and pasting them into the correct lines, and providing a description of the material which is considered to have been reverted in all four. Opalus 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Those who ask for links are as lazy as those who don't give them. Don't resort to laziness. History pages are made for this - let's use them. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that your misinterpretation of the intent of this revision is what has made you opposed to it now. The intent here is less to provide a simple means of access and more to provide an official record with means for appropriate access to the reverts made to allow review of the block justification by external parties. Laziness or lack of laziness is irrelevant. Comprehension for review by third parties is the intent of this proposed revision, at least so far as it has always seemed to be to me. Opalus 01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh mighty MrM, admin with the clear-cut vision and master of justified blocks. May I take you by your word ("I will post them if users want to see, all they have to do is ask.") and hunbly ask you to list the offending edits whenever you block a user in the future? --vonbergm 01:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have included a basic template on WN:ALERT and actually used it recently. Have a look there -- it worked quite well for me. --Chiacomo (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am gratified to see the attention this has gotten, and will weigh in once I have had a chance to read all the comments. StrangerInParadise 00:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say 1 is a good & harmless policy change, but I kinda agree with MrM on 3 being mixing policy & nonpolicy, and being instruction creep. As for 2, admins just shouldn't block for non-vandalism 3RR violations when they are involved, ever, period. If it ever does, the block is clearly "at least as bad as another revert by the admin", and should also count towards 3RR. But it'll also need some dispute resolution probably. Anyway, I think 1 helps here considerably, as posting first means another admins will read it very fast, so involved admins are far more likely to post & not block, i.e. a solution without significant instruction creeps. Nyarlathotep 02:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed WN:3RR to include listing the violation on WN:ALERT. We don't have many 3RR violations, so this shouldn't be a great burden on the blocking admin. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I also added the sentence "An individual admin who reverts a page exactly three times and also locks the page themselves, or blocks the other reverting user, has similarly violated the 3RR themselves" to the revert-like behavior section. Violating the 3RR shouldn't be taken to be the only thing the admin has done wrong in such a situation, but its helps keep it clear. Nyarlathotep 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Craig reverted my addition, so I guess its somehow more controversial than I thought. Seems fairly obvious that, if a user deleted a particular piece of information they didn't like 3 times, and then deleted the whole section, we'd call it a 3RR violation. So why not 3 deleleted plus a block or lock? Its pretty trivial for admins to get another admin to do the block or lock for them if necessary. Whatever, its not a big deal in any case. Nyarlathotep 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, this item should be taken before as a vote. There are still objections to the proposal, which as it seems will not be accepted in whole. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

With due respect, MrM, the only objection appears to be yours. Point 1 of this proposal seems to have gained wide support. What exactly is your objection to Point 1? The documentation of 3RR violations is not difficult. The documentation of 3RR violations provides the community with a clear and public basis for administrative action. While all admin actions cannot be so simply presented the community, 3RR violations are clear-cut and easily understandable violations of policy which can be easily documented. This should be a black and white issue. Documentation avoids confusion and controversy (and prevents 3RR violation block reversal by other admins). Oh, and voting is evil. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why a vote? It has been reduced to effectively a modified first item. So far as I understand it, only one aspect, whether to include time requirement for making the report and how to define that length of the time if so and one matter, integrating the final form into the policy page remain to be clarified for this reduced form. The result of it being integrated into the policy is only that it requires a record for action analysis, for purpose of education and for exact review. That is its singular requirement in the final form. What objection is there to this reduced form? To its implementation, despite the wide support it has attained in only a few days? What further alterations are necessary for it to be accepted by you, for example? To make it optional without some stress for its use will make it useless, and addition of a stress such as making it the only method to obtain proof for arbitration might be more difficult to impose. Opalus 03:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me start off by stating that it is very odd that you joined up for this wiki, and have done almost nothing but complain about policy since day one. Not only does it arouse suspicions, but it also concerns me greatly. Second of all, a proposal is a proposal in whole. If there is something to be put into place, or if sections of the proposal need to be changed, we do it through way of a vote. There is no clear and concise answer to the original proposal here, and to assert one is ludicrous. So, rewrite this proposal if you want it through, because I do not feel it will pass if it were to be voted on right now. Policy comes through consensus, not a few users' comments on the issue. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, the consideration of your desire for a vote formerly was for the process of determining what should remain in the proposal and what modifications were necessary. Of the implied comment, that I find to be that you believe my account not to have been genuinely made for proper use, I must comment that it is unfounded. I have not complained, ever. I observed this site for nearly a year before beginning to edit and have asked questions regarding policy, and made comments on it in the past four or so months. It is only recently that I have begun to dedicate any quantity approaching significance of effort to voice what view I have developed from my rather long period of observation. I found from it the capacity for the community to improve site operations, and as I believe this site can operate with greater efficiency given particular changes, I have now begun to suggest and to support other's suggestions for that purpose. If necessary to proceed further on this specific subject it might be better on my or on your own talk page rather than here, so that discussions on this policy suggestion remain unobstructed. On the matter here, two comments. I have been aware of policy processes, I mention wide support as it has occurred not to deny opposition but to only place the appropriate frame around it. A final form is what remains then, by your comment. A time more for any further qualifications to be made and it might be worthy to write one formally. Opalus 04:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is built through discussion. The only thing that a Yes/No vote can hope to produce is a majority. --Deprifry|+T+ 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

MrM, What possible objection can there be to 1? Nyarlathotep 12:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As to item 2, I see three quite reasonable positions:

  1. No more changes: Adding 1 already solves the problem by making it easier for one admin to convince another of a 3RR violation, and forcing the admin to think a tiny bit more before blocking.
  2. Admin may "block when involved" only if they block themselves too (Borofkin's original 2).
  3. Interpret of "revert" to overlap with the admin abuse of blocking or protecting when involved in the dispute (obviously not an issue for vandalism). This is my suggestion of addding the sentence "An individual admin who reverts a page exactly three times and also locks the page themselves, or blocks the other reverting user, has similarly violated the 3RR themselves" to the revert-like behavior section of WN:3RR.

Do people have opinions on these? Nyarlathotep 12:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Item 1 has broad, almost unanimous support, and should be/is in effect right now,I think and it should definitely be "prior to blocking" since the blocker must have that info on hand anyway to make a justified block. If there are others who share MrM's opposition, they should have come forward by now,imo. Item 2 I think is also a no-brainer as it lessens conflict between the blocker and blockee; so the person involved in the edit dispute should NEVER be the person who does the blocking. We have lots of admins around here and on IRC now so if there is a real 3RR, it will not be difficult to find someone else to do the block. I also want to say that I appreciate Opalus's work here and often find his comments thought provoking and thoroughly responsive to whatever is said to him. Neutralizer 15:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is really simple, and it is being drawn out and made complicated with instruction creep. There is widespread consensus on listing violations so... --Brian McNeil / talk 15:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Discussion comment

I am again gratified by the attention this issue has gotten. The discussion, pace Amgine, is not nearly closed.

There are some unrecognized points which warp the current discussion,

  • I did not violate 3RR, nor was I disruptive
  • MrM's blatently attempted to prevail in an editorial conflict with administrative powers
  • MrM mistakenly believes he is empowered as an administrator to rule on summarily and enforce WN:NPOV
  • MrM mistakenly believes he is empowered as an administrator to rule on summarily and enforce WN:CS
  • MrM wrongly claimed that material I had added was unsourced, but in fact was well-sourced.
  • MrM's additional claim that my behaviour was disruptive, entitling him to block for four days was clearly false, as his many policy violations clearly created the disruption
  • WN:3RR is basically sound, as is WN:BP and the various applicable instructions constraining admin powers in editorial conflicts, but they go ignored
  • This community has a fundemental decision to make as to whether it shall be governed by the guidance of rules or the whims of personalities

That said, some useful modifications to WN:3RR and WN:ADMIN can be made, which I will discuss below.

[edit] There is presently in WN:3RR zero policy basis for the concept of partial revert

  • In WP:3RR, there is consideration of partial reverts
  • In WN:3RR, there is a reference to WP:RV but none to any notion of partial revert, A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time.
  • Note that there exists no WN:Revert
  • This constitutes an intentional constraint from WP:3RR, so no extension can apply, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, generalia specialibus non derogant
  • When I first raised the question of 3RR with Amgine, in his capacity as an administrator, he stated specifically that WN:3RR differs from WP:3RR,
I would like to quote the 3RR policy as it is written on Wikinews, which may differ somewhat from the formulation on Wikipedia: Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. -Amgine
  • MrM ignored the difference between WN:3RR and WP:3RR, but applied the latter only when it suited him, disregarding the constraints omitted in WN:3RR on administrators with respect to editorial involvement (though present elsewhere in WN:POLICY), but admitting partial reverts (which have no foundation in WN:3RR period).
  • How would one know that one had violated the policy?

[edit] Wikinews:Letters to the Editors

What do people think of this idea? I've went a bit rule crazy with it, trying to keep it from being a venu for our own little wars, so I doubt we'd accept it in this form, but we'll probably need such a thing some day, and the recent editorial addiotn to Allegations_of_three_candidates'_drug_ties_resurface_in_Haitian_presidential_race made me think about it. Nyarlathotep 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how letters to the editor could be reconciled with the NPOV. The NPOV rule is not something which may be negotiated, and is not a policy which is determined on Wikinews but by the Wikimedia Foundation board. - Amgine | talk en.WN 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It would need to be outside the main article namespace. Letters to the Editor really means two things
  1. a POV namespace like User: but for anons too.
  2. an ability to link to said namespace from articles.
Both of which are kinda foundation level issues, as you say. Anyway, its a fact that we havn't gotten letters to the editor, so its a moot point for now, but most papers have some such capacity, so its probably worth considering. It might also greatly simplify the removal of POV content from hotly contested articles, especially when such content comes from an party named in the story.
Also, I'm not proposing this, I'm just asking for people to comment on it. For now, I like the solution to the Allegations_of_three_candidates'_drug_ties_resurface_in_Haitian_presidential_race AfD as a solution for most such issues, i.e. just use the Talk: namespace. Nyarlathotep 15:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Anons have user pages as well. Bawolff ☺☻image:smile.png 18:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikinews may not support or allow POV articles to be posted. The only exception is in user space, and this is also under the proviso of "so long as other users do not find it offensive." Incidentally, this also applies to talk pages whose purpose is to coordinate and mediate the development of the actual news article.
The "Letter to the editor" response by Guy Philippe is not an article source. We have no ability to determine if the posting is actually from Mr. Philippe. It is very likely to have been a copy and past from a letter to the Miami Herald, and perfectly innocuous in that respect, but it should be linked to there—not on a Wikinews page where it is unverifiable information.
Getting back to the subject... Letters to the editor would require a range of things which Wikinews does not do: verifying the letter writer is who they say they are, preventing their letter from being altered, allowing POV content in a formal manner, accepting material which is not collaborative. I don't feel this is something Wikinews should be doing. - Amgine | talk en.WN 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Letters to the Editor? No thanks, whilst a good idea in terms of allowing feedback it would likely require more effort than our entire team of editors currently spend across the entire project. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong approach. The reason traditional newspapers publish letters to the editor in the way they do is that they have limited space, so they have to select carefully which opinions to publish. Like other online media which have long been accepting reader comments, we do not have those space limits.

I do not see article discussions as being incompatible with the NPOV mandate. After all, they are clearly separate from the article content. What we could use, I think, is a separate talk namespace specifically for sharing opinions related to an article, rather than attempts to improve it. As we grow larger, these comments become inevitable (remember the Utah rave story?), so we might as well try to provide a useful forum for readers. The namespace changes coming in MediaWiki 1.6 make such a separate namespace an realistic option.--Eloquence 08:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! are we 'talking' about what I have been thinking about. The 'discussion' page has been pushed into "discussion" about improving the article... but what about "talk" about the article. There appears room on my browser for another 'tab' up top for "talk", or some other name for it, which serve the purpose of letter to the editors'r'us. -Edbrown05 08:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I've been thinking about. The new namespace manager in MediaWiki 1.6 allows multiple talk namespaces to be associated with a subject namespace. The multi-tabs thing is not yet supported, but wouldn't be too hard to do. Note that MediaWiki 1.6 is not out yet, so we'll have to wait a bit.--Eloquence

Eloquence, it is quite clearly defined in WN:NOT that providing such an extra talk namespace for articles is a move for Wikinews to become what Wikinews isn't. If we start contradicting what we started out as, expect NPOV to be the next one that crumbles. No, it should not be allowed - it isn't, even. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 11:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I love the idea of a seperate Comments: namespace next to the talk namespace. Its much simpler than any full letters to the editor type system. It give you a ghetto to dump POV content added to the article, excessive quotes, etc. Plus, it'll help keep Talk: focused on the article. Nyarlathotep 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think those in favour of this idea are labouring from a position of "hope over experience". Whilst you (the supporters of this concept) might hope that we will get reasoned discussion on an article "chat" page, I very much doubt that will be the case. Once we open the door to POV comments on one part of the Wiki I firmly believe they will spread elsewhere. Letters to the editor(s) are quite critically screened in any conventional newspaper or online news source, I can't see any way to implement this which does not divert attention away from writing articles to fighting off idiots who'll post garbage like "Bush sux" on any article that mentions the US President, or those that'll use terms like "ragheads" to describe Arab leaders when we have articles mentioning them.
If you're determined to go through with a process like this you'd need to be doing something like accepting submissions by email and screening them to select letters, or excepts from letters, that meant that a daily digest of submissions was balanced even though it may have POV comments within individual parts. That might just be workable, but a free for all will lead to a tragedy of the commons. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Screening? This is a wiki, mate. We can just remove comments which don't meet a comment policy we define. :-) I don't see the slippery slope. Already, talk pages are full of personal views - personal views about how the article should be changed, sure, but they are still personal views. And already, we get the occasional discussion where we distinguish different levels of talk, e.g. Talk:Coordinated terrorist attack hits London/Meta. As noted above, I think these comments will come more and more whether we like it or not. Instead of creating tension by deleting them all, I think it best to segregate them to an appropriate place.--Eloquence 19:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I support trialing this, however something like this will have to be on its own namespace, like Letters (or similar) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 12:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian McNeil, I'd hope that having comments would bring more article contributors, but I've got no idea how comments should be edited, deleted, etc. to help improve the content of the articles, nor what policy should govern them. Nyarlathotep 14:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nyarlathotep, you are seeing some of my concerns if you're like me and can see no way to police a section such as this. I have experience on Usenet and a number of online discussion forums, plus I have participated in things like the BBC's online equivalent of letters to the editor. Any news organisation that implements a system like that has heavy editorial control over it. People are discouraged from making inappropriate comments because they do not appear immediately, if at all. On a wiki there is an incentive to make nasty comments. The next person to read the page will see them, and to remove them requires an action by someone. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe the number of current contributors could possibly manage to moderate the vitriol and POVioring which would occur were we to actively support discussions on Wikinews. The Utah Rave article is a classic example, in which contributors altered each other's comments, erased them, or otherwise failed to follow Wikinews:Etiquette in extreme formats. Based on experiences on other news source forums I would be opposed to trialing this. Based on my understanding of the NPOV policy, Wikinews cannot do so. Based on the experiences at the LA Times this is a very bad idea. I see absolutely no examples where this has been successful in meeting the goals of developing an online community; creating and publishing timely, accurate, and verifiable news articles; and archiving those articles in a permanent publically available form. These are the goals of Wikinews. We even have specific, longstanding policy stating Wikinews is not a public forum. - Amgine | talk en.WN 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The link above needs to be taken seriously. If we contradict one thing on those lists, we're done. We might as well throw in the towel (I know I personally will). You give up on that policy, NPOV's the next thing to go. Amgine's hit the nail on the head; there are no examples of good that can come out of proposals like these, and there are limitless cons to these proposals. I for one will not waste time on a community that will contradict its goals that have been so clear and that users have dedicated so much to helping us continue to succeed; it will be a disgrace to every single user on Wikinews, and all those who have helped us in the past. I'm standing by policy. I have no mercy for users who violate it intentionally; and I do not care at what position that user may be. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I am strongly against experimenting with this now, and if ever, it needs to have community and foundation approval. The strongest argument against POV discussions on the site is that they could lead to division in the community of editors. In any case, for now we have more than enough on our plate. Amgine and I have also been talking about the possibility of an off-site forum, more on that as it develops.--Eloquence 01:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Something offsite will be better Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm convinced, any conversation should probably continue on News discussion/commentary on Wikicities in the technical section. Nyarlathotep 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think WikiCities is the place to go with article talk, because it moves the user away from Wikinews. I don't think an article "Talk" tab would be a distraction to editors here because, .... it would be a circumspect glance probably (or something). -Edbrown05 05:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snap-vote

Proposed addition to WN:3RR,

  • Old: "Violations of the three-revert policy can be brought to the attention of administrators at Wikinews:Admin action alerts page."
  • New: "Violations of the three-revert policy can be brought to the attention of administrators at Wikinews:Admin action alerts page. Any administrator who imposes a block for an unlisted 3RR violation should list the reverts on WN:ALERT before the block expires."

Vote to support or oppose only, sign votes with ~~~~, and refrain from commenting.

Support. Opalus 19:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
voting is evil and Instruction creep is evil. Bawolff ☺☻image:smile.png 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Note: deep down I support this, I just think voting is evil. Bawolff ☺☻image:smile.png 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose proposal -- that is, the proposal in whole. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

:Apologies, in this case what is meant by "the proposal in whole" segment of your comment? The initial suggestion subject to discussion made by Borofkin is not what is voted on here, only the detailed singular change listed in bold is what is voted on here, if I read Brianmc's poll post correctly. Are you opposed to it or are you mistakenly still continuing on that initial suggestion made by Borofkin? Opalus 20:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is worse than herding cats. I proposed a vote, I put up clear instructions, and there are still comments, despite the fact it says refrain from commenting. I want this issue closed, I am sick and tired of seeing every new contributor who is enthusiastic but not savvy to NPOV resulting in mediation, disputes about policy violations, and accusations that admins are not acting in the best interests of the wiki. I think this is a good idea, I used should in the spirit that you'd find in an RFC to allow block then list, or even block then list when you're reminded, I tried to keep instruction creep to a minimum, and you 'still want to argue about how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin. <shakes head>--Brian McNeil / talk 22:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of seeing every new contributor who is enthusiastic but not savvy to NPOV resulting in mediation, disputes about policy violations, and accusations that admins are not acting in the best interests of the wiki. Perhaps if admins followed policy, this wouldn't happen. As I think of all the POV issues of which I been the subject, they degraded into admin action long before they were ever discussed. Worse is when one places a sourced statement, then gets reverted without the reverter examining, or even asking about, the source. There has been, in my experience, precious little in the way of objectivity here. Blaming new contributors for failing to read the whims of admins is ridiculous. The reason there are rules in the first place is to avoid creating a privileged class of editors, which is what were have now. BTW, I am only replying to your comment. Now, neither your comment nor mine belong in a snap-vote, though Opalus' point-of-information is proper, with apologies it is very proper. StrangerInParadise 12:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd vaguely prefer Any administrator who imposes a block for an unlisted 3RR violation should first list the reverts on WN:ALERT." Or the existing wording, but its no biggie. Voting is evil, but if people want it. Nyarlathotep 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Support --vonbergm 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

CSpurrier (who hasn't even contributed to this discussion) deleted my comment here which was; * why "before block expires"? Blocker could wait until 1 minute before block expires? and the snap vote I set up based upon the original suggestion(list 3rrs before the block); and I'd like to know why it was deleted? Neutralizer 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there was an edit conflict; but I would have liked a message. Neutralizer 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Definitely an edit conflict. I now think we should just not say when it should be posted, admins will probably do it quickly, or other admins will revert the block. Nyarlathotep 02:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Support - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR policy discussion

I'd like to cut a line in this discussion, as it seems to be dragging out without achieving resolution.

[edit] Documentation of 3RR violations

Any administrator who imposes a block for an unlisted 3RR violation should list the reverts on WN:ALERT before the block expires.

The proposed policy change is not harmful as a guideline; as a requirement of all admins for every circumstance it might be both onerous and specifically used to harrass administrators. I believe this formulation, using the word should, allows an appropriate level of flexibility so admins acting in good faith will not be harrassed, yet admins may be challenged to produce evidence justifying a block. One thing to keep in mind is the 3RR is a specific extension of the blocking policy regarding disruption. Repeated reverting is considered a disruption of Wikinews, the 3RR is a codification for this specific type of disruption. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basis for policy change

In wiki communities it generally the rule of thumb to address only an existing problem, and then interfere only so much as is necessary to fix that problem. This avoids Instruction creep. There are also many suggestions to go through policy regularly and trim back the rules to the minimums necessary to keep the community working smoothly. We aren't a debate society; we're here to produce news articles, not wikilawyers.

Does this proposed change address an existing and ongoing problem? - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a few things I aim to address with this specific wording, and I think Amgine has fairly clearly expressed most of them. Amgine's comment also touches on other points that may need considered in the context in which this particular policy discusssion began.
One, documentation. The vast majority of 3RR violations will be cases where someone is completely new to the wiki and will have no repeats. Where there are repeat offenses, it may be more appropriate to act under disruption guidelines. In such cases documented prior offenses strengthen the admin's position in perhaps applying more strict rulings.
Two, We had one 3RR violation that sparked a lot of interest and debate, even one of the administrators who finally imposed a block wasn't sure until he'd gone through the listing process. So, the process, or the evidence available for inspection, will lead to less people in an "I don't know" situation for a prolonged period of time.
Three, instruction creep. I'm really trying to avoid that, take my above comments and you'll see the extra rule allows for civil ways of dealing with all the conflicts we had. Your recourse in the face of a block is to appeal to another admin, the block has to be explained, and the room for conflict is fairly small.
  • Yes, it solves existing problems. I've very rarely known what the specific reversions were, as they are only sometimes obvious from the article's log. It'll help both new users and newer admins understand what constitues 3RR violations. It'll significantly cut down on the apperance of admins using blocking to win editorial debates, as admins will be much more likely to post and allow an uninvolved admin to block, and this, in turn, will make our community much more inviting to wikipedia editors. It'll also simplify documentation of prior offenses, as past claims of past 3RR violations are now "objective" in the sence that many users may have looked at them. Nyarlathotep 00:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure that a timeframe needs to be specified for posting the information to WN:ALERT. In practice, timeframe will be enforced by other curious admins, and probably depend upon the length of the block and involved users in bizarre ways. Lets not overspecify. Nyarlathotep 02:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this as an ongoing, current problem; that is, I do not see a number of editors complaining they have been unreasonably blocked for 3RR. Nor do I see a number of 3RR blocks, whether or not justified with documentation. Based on these two observations, I would describe the proposal as instruction creep.
That said, I am not opposed to a guideline for the moment, as worded above by brianmc. - Amgine | talk en.WN 03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It is shocking to me that you would say that there is not a problem, perhaps I have not done enough to bring it to your attention. Even as peruse various talk pages, I see the scars of past conflicts. Additionally, there is the issue of administrative powers used to prevail in editorial conflict. One instance of that would be too much, and there have been several. Nyarlathotep speaks of significantly cutting down on the apperance of admins using blocking to win editorial debates. I am talking about removing admins who do so, full stop. When this matter was first posted here, I said nothing. Volumes have been written. This is not about instruction creep, it is about enforcing the rules that are already here. Enough denial!
Below, I have proposed changes to 3RR which would result in zero increase in institutional overhead. There is no reason not to implement them. The changes to rules governing administrators are an increase in process, but one hopes they would be rarely needed.
Nothing is more corrosive to confidence in any Wikimedia community than the notion, even the suspicion, that administrators are a privileged class of editors, who must be catered to. It is a fundamental corruption of the NPOV principle. This makes it a Foundation issue.
StrangerInParadise 14:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)







[edit] Snap-vote

Proposed addition to WN:3RR, *Old: "Violations of the three-revert policy can be brought to the attention of administrators at Wikinews:Admin action alerts page." *New: "Violations of the three-revert policy can be brought to the attention of administrators at Wikinews:Admin action alerts page. Any administrator who imposes a block for an unlisted 3RR violation must list the reverts on WN:ALERT before blocking."

Vote to support or oppose only, sign votes with ~~~~, and refrain from commenting.

*Support Neutralizer 02:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil, especially for something which is nearly consensus. Can we avoid having votes and just discuss the elements above? It looks like the discussion is nearly closed. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I support this proposal in any of the current forms, and I don't believe the timeframe matters much, but my preference is not to specify a timeframe at all. Nyarlathotep 02:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal to amend WN:3RR

For the purposes of 3RR, reverts shall not include the following,

  • reverts of self
  • reverts of vandalism
  • reverts of actions out of order (misapplication of authority)
  • reverts with explicit or tacit assent of revertee
  • partial reverts constituting a good faith edit in compromise, which shall be presumed to be so unless there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary

Documentation of both enumerated reverts and warning must be listed in prior to application of block.

Templates to document full and partial reverts shall be created.

An example template (note this example happens to document full reverts not subject to 3RR under this proposal). The first is simply a revert where Amgine and I happened to bump into one another. The second two are responses to MrM imposing authority the community never gave him.

Full revert: last-diff null-diff Amgine major edit started in the middle of Stranger's edit session (see history)


Full revert: last-diff null-diff Claim of unsourced material unfounded


Full revert: last-diff null-diff Opposing reversion out of order (see previous)



Note that the documentation of partial reverts is less cut-and-dry, but would also yield to templating.

[edit] Support/Oppose

In this section, please enter your comment as,
* Position. Brief comment. -Signature
Dialog is encouraged, but may be continued below.

Interim tally as of 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC) (Supporting 8, Opposing 5, Weak something 1)

  • Support StrangerInParadise 16:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Documenting things properly can only serve to make it easier to see violations should they occur later on - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 06:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Neutralizer 14:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find the wording of this unclear. I am in favour of documenting a 3RR violation, but I do not agree with this legalese instruction creep. There are to many vague sections that will just see disputes like this drag on and go to ArbCom. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
comment;I agree with Brian, but I feel we need something right away that could be improved upon (simplified?) later. Perhaps Brian might put something simpler in front of us to vote on? Neutralizer 15:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The question is: which of the five points above should ever be ignored by an admin. There is no ambiguity here, and the language is not complex: when in doubt as to these five, do not block StrangerInParadise 19:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The way this proposal is worded I think will just create more problems then it will slove --Cspurrier 16:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
comment;Do you have a better suggestion? Neutralizer 15:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hesitantly support agree with neutralizer. Bawolff ☺☻image:smile.png 23:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Use your heads. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --vonbergm 07:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose agree with Brianmc and Cspurrier. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Progress with this. -Edbrown05 08:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.International 14:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal as a bad idea and here's why. First, "tacit assent of the revertee"? That's impossible to determine in a wiki environment where they only thing you see from your counterparts are a bunch of letters. Secondly, "action out of order". What's that? It's incredibly broad. Most revert are done because someone believes the previous edit was done "out of order". It's highly subjective to determine what is really out of order and what's not. Third, the "partial reverts" clause would render the 3RR virtually useless as one could simply add a word here and there, some punctuation and wouldn't count as a revert. Edit wars could continue endless. The only thing that keeps the 3RR running is that it doesn't distinguish between "good" or "bad" edits because that is almost always a matter of interpretation. This proposal does nothing to clarify the rule. It makes it vastly more complicated, extremly open to interpretation and thus effectivly abolishes it. --Deprifry|+T+ 08:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment, and ask you to reconsider. There are many benign edits which, technically, would count as "partial reverts", especially when editors are working well together. They may involve corrections of fact, or edits in compromise. Without this proviso, one's last edit carries undue weight, a problem particularly when edits are overbroad or defective in authority. The proposal changes the standard to a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, an easy burden if in fact an edit war is occuring. As to tacit assent, remember that the 3RR rule is intended to provide discretion to stop edit wars, not as a determination per se that an edit war is in fact occuring, nor as a technicality to block an editor. This discretion has been regularly abused at Wikinews with the sole aim to prevent others from editing. You should consider how often an editor is surprised to discover he has in fact violated the rule. This uncertainty creates an inihibition to edit which undermines NPOV and anyone can edit, both core Foundation issues. 3RR blocks should be rare. StrangerInParadise 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[this thread continues here, and is worth reading. I have moved it so that it not obscure the subsequent votes in this section, or lend the appearance that the voting is closed -StrangerInParadise 20:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)]
  • What? / Weak something I strongly support Brians current additions, which seems to be almost universally accepted. I've little opinion on more complex stuff like partial reverts, but I doubt we need anything *more* complex than wikipedia. And I suspect everyone may find Brian's existing changes far more helpful than anything else. Nyarlathotep 12:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Point of information: the proposed policy is not more complex than Wikipedia. It is however, more explicit, as the practice here regularly ignores those elements of Wikipedia such as assume good faith, editorial involvement, etc. With the liberal construction of partial revert in effect at Wikinews, how are editors able to respond to overbroad edits (especially deletions and errors of fact) without breaking the rule? Please let us know whether you support or oppose. StrangerInParadise 13:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The need for this is manifest. In my own recent 3RR ordeal, estimates among admins ranged from four to seven reverts. This shows that a more careful, objective notion of the violation is is clearly needed. It also lessens the potential for administrative abuse. StrangerInParadise 08:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A few comments from an equal editor, on the Proposal to amend WN:3RR. It is often my observation that reverts are used whenever the administrator performing the revert wishes to not bother with adding any information themselves to settle a matters in article disputes and that they are used to enforce policy as it might be enforced when the individual administrator is agitated over any matter. Given this, and that reverts of self, vandalism, and with assent of revertee already occur without specific policy and in an informal setting, and that self declarations of abuse of authority do not often occur, the reform proposal will likely be bogged down in argument. The current form of the partial revert exists through negotiations at optimum, and may need to remain there as official procedure would need to be immensely complex to cover all aspects fully. The further aspect of misapplication of authority review is already present as the optimal outcome of arbitration with an administrator; though the current system is not consistent, any further policy change on that is unlikely to reach consensus as the arbitration system itself is rather new. Opalus 06:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The policy is aided by the bright lines established in the WN:Administrators proposal. The block is regularly threatened and used here summarily and by taking full advantage of the ambiguities closed by the 3RR proposal, in my experience and that of others. Cf