Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Archive/12

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Invasive controlling of User's space[edit]

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)

Arbitration Committee Elections 2006[edit]

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)

Editing published stories[edit]

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)

Foreign language sources[edit]

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)

Modification to three revert rule blocking policy[edit]

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)
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 ☺☻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)

3RR Discussion comment[edit]

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.

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

  • 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?

Wikinews:Letters to the Editors[edit]

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 ☺☻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)

Snap-vote[edit]

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 ☺☻Smile.png 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Note: deep down I support this, I just think voting is evil. Bawolff ☺☻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)

3RR policy discussion[edit]

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

Documentation of 3RR violations[edit]

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)

Basis for policy change[edit]

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)







Snap-vote[edit]

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)


Proposal to amend WN:3RR[edit]

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.


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

        Support/Oppose[edit]

        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)
        • SupportMESSEDROCKER (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 ☺☻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)

        Comments[edit]

        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 this diff, where the presumption of good faith and the barring of editorial enforcement would have led to a more reasonable outcome. StrangerInParadise 07:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        Define an edit out of order. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        For example, admin reverts with comment "unsourced", but doesn't specify what is not sourced, broadly reverts, reverts things that are sourced.StrangerInParadise 07:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
        I think some requirements are needed right away as this 3RR block was doneBlock_of_International with no attempt at explanation nor even a response to inquiries. Neutralizer 14:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        Per Neutralizer's above comment, I believe I offered a suggested wording further up the page. Since that appears to have been "vandalised" before the vote was struck out as being evil I will re-put my proposed addition: Any administrator who blocks a user under the WN:3RR policy should list the diffs from the offending edits on WN:ALERT before the block expires. It is my firm belief that policy should draw from the lessons given in the formulation of the Internet RFCs. I think this meets that requirement and allows for civil requests to be made where a violation has not been listed. If I don't get a couple of well-reasoned objections I will make this amendment and hopefully settle the matter before we have another controversial article. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        Brian, is the should in your proposal the same should as in "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict"? History has shown that (some? or just one?) administrator(s) repeatedly ignore directives that are not binding without showing any remorse. Unless someone can explain to me how to deal with this situation, I cannot support this wording. --vonbergm 18:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        Perhaps the word could be "shall" instead of "should"? Neutralizer 18:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        Well, without going and checking blocking policy in detail I'd have to say yes. If and when we grow to a size that you are sure of getting an independent admin's attention at 5 minutes notice then some of these shoulds could be changed to musts. If there is a real problem with a particular administrator ignoring "should" statements and this leading to conflict then I think it would be an ideal case to bring before the ArbCom. They would be well within their rights to dictate that someone read "must" where policy stated "should". The objective should be to alter the behaviour of individuals who cause conflict, not to make administrative tasks on the wiki so complex or burdensome that they are not carried out. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        This makes sense for the "blocking while engaged in conflict" rule, but not really for the 3RR blocks. The person that applies the block knows exactly why the block was imposed, so it is very easy to fill in the template. Not only will this avoid later discussion, but it will also serve as a document of how policy is applied and can serve as a guideline for other users and admins. How about the following slight reformulation: "Any administrator who blocks a user under the WN:3RR policy should list the diffs from the offending edits on WN:ALERT in a timely fashion, and must list them before the block expires." --vonbergm 19:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        Could we make it "must list them within 24 hours" (the 3RR limit)? I can see cases perhaps arising where someone gets a really short block on a first offence where the only person to dispute it is them. If the requirement is within the block then it might not get done before the user was back and screaming that policy had been violated. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        I think this (Brian's) is a good solution. Neutralizer 21:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        I agree. --vonbergm 21:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        I agree 3RR actions must be documented, but this doesn't solve the problem that clearly benign edits can and are now regularly counted as part of 3RR violations. StrangerInParadise 07:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
        I have updated the commented out revision on WN:3RR, it now reads Any administrator who blocks a user under the WN:3RR policy should ensure the diffs from the offending edits are listed on WN:ALERT in a timely fashion if they have not been provided by a third party. The offending diffs must be listed within 24 hours to provide a record of policy application.
        I know this is slightly different again, but you can preview the page after removing the comment delimiters to see if it reads well for administrators as well as other editors. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        Why is there such a haste to block that they cannot be listed before the block? The template is easy enough, just plug in the information, {{revert|new-edit-number|prev-edit-number|contrast-edit-number|comment}}! If an admin does not have this info already, how can he even be sure that 3RR has occured? Has it occured to anyone that blocking may be too easy to do? StrangerInParadise 02:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
        SIP, you are right! If the information has to be given anyway (which I strongly believe), then it should be given up front! There simply is no reason why one would have to block for 3RR before filling in the template. --vonbergm 07:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        I believe 3RR blocks should be clearly documented on WN:ALERT and perhaps the user's talk page. Everything else I see here is wikilawyering and process that further divides the community. I think this discussion has already led to a change in WN:3RR WITHOUT voting. Voting is evil -- especially for something so important to the community. Shame on some of you for voting when it's obvious the community can reach a decision without a simple division. If this thing is going to pass (and it doesn't appear it will as there is no clear consensus), please simplify the language of the five points. The template needs only show the original version and 4 reverts -- perhaps I'm looking too quickly, but the above template doesn't enumerate the 4 reverts. Reasons don't matter. Positions don't matter. The truth, actually, doesn't matter -- the only thing that matters is that a user is violating the spirit of the wiki by reverting another user. Mistakes happen and tempers flare -- this is why it's a 3RR instead of a 1RR. Maybe that's the next thing we should vote on -- WN:1RR. Anyone willing to adhere to that rule? Probably not. I'm ranting. I'll stop. --Chiacomo (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

        Deprifry-Stranger dialog (continued)[edit]

        [this has been moved from the Support/Oppose vote section above]

        Preponderance of evidence is actually a pretty high bar, one could win a law suit with it. Then again, who makes the determination whereto the evidence points? This has potential to cause even greater dispute than there is today. You are arguing that the disrection at interpreting the rule has been "regulary abused". But your proposal would dramaticly expand the discretion of admins because they could then decide which edit are "out of order" and which are not, which edit were done in "good faith to compromise" and which were not and so on. Again, the only way the 3RR can work IMHO is when it doesn't judge the value of an edit as that is almost exclusively subjective. Wikipedia's 3RR keeps it simple and has only two exception. And they seem to get along with it pretty well. --Deprifry|+T+ 15:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        As it means more likely to be true than false, I think preponderance of evidence is the appropriate threshhold, as the hole opened by allowing partial edits is very large. As mentioned above, there is a broad spectrum of benign edits which fall under partial revert. The preponderance threshhold, if not met, could be challenged on review. I grant you that Wikipedia has less problems, though this is due only to the low level of accountability here. This threshhold would clarify matters, and ought to be on Wikipedia as well. As to edits out of order, again the standard is both a guide, and creates a basis for review. It does not require a judgement of quality, but only the existing one of policy. The level of discretion to make determinations is the same, but discretion to block is clarified as more limited. StrangerInParadise 00:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        Well, an admin who would block for clearly benign edits, like "corrections of facts" as you mentioned, would have left all common sense miles behind, so I don't see this a problem. On the other hand, explicitly exempting partial reverts would create a new loophole for people to game the system by making minor changes at every revert while in fact they are just plainly edit warring. I believe, as cases are rarely black and white / good editor vs. evil edior, it is impossible to present a preponderance of evidence, evidence that is undisputed and universally accepted, to counter such activity thus rendering the 3RR ineffective. To the "action out of order". This also opens new opportunities for edit warriors as they could easily accuse each other of "being out of order" and ultimately, if we want don't hundreds of reversion for every article, the blocking admin needs to make the determination whether edits were "out of order". And because that sentence is so incredibly vague, it's impossible to get it right. (On an interesting sidenote, Wikipedia is having the very same discussion right now) --Deprifry|+T+ 12:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        This proposal is not "explicitly exempting partial reverts", it requires the application of a guideline and a clear common sense standard. Examine these three reverts, then ask whether either common sense or the predonderance test was met. The proposal places these within bright lines for review. When I brought this to several other admins, they asked no further than whether these were in fact four partial reverts within 24 hours, they did not consider whether to count these violated common sense or arose- manifestly- out of improper administrative action (such as MrM's intial threat to block and claim of unsourced in a overbroad revert of his own). 3RR has become a substitute for good judgement, necessitating the clarification. It is clear that the common sense doctrine is not in effect.
        {{FullRevert|New South Wales set to adopt harsher anti-cannabis laws|205580|205565...}}
        {{FullRevert|New South Wales set to adopt harsher anti-cannabis laws|205676|205671...}}
        {{FullRevert|New South Wales set to adopt harsher anti-cannabis laws|205696|205683...}}
        (note that there was no agreement on what the fourth revert was, or whether it was four, seven, or whatever, which is why there is no fourth listed)
        This is what is so insideous about the recent addition of the in whole or in part phrase. In its origin, 3RR was intended as a bright line guide, an electric fence against edit war. With the in whole or in part phase in WP:3RR (cited or disregarded as foreign at admin convenience), it has become a minefield: one can edit in good faith and still find oneself in violation of the rules. This is a far greater danger than someone gaming the system, for which even the current guidelines (without in whole or in part) are adequate to prevent. StrangerInParadise 13:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, let's examine the reverts Chiacomo actually used as basis for your block, the ones he listed here, instead of some randomly chosen ones.
        • First 13:27, 7 February 2006
        • Second 15:40, 7 February 2006
        • Third 15:52, 7 February 2006
        • Fourth 16:13, 7 February 2006
        Look for these sentences:
        Quote

        There have been several conflicting studies concerning the link between cannabis use and mental illness, though the majority show danger only from regular adolescent usage.

        Australian research conducted in 2002 found that teen-age women who used cannabis weekly were twice as likely to suffer from depression or anxiety than non-users. The results of an American study published in 2005 found that those who used cannabis "had less depressed mood more positive affect, and fewer somatic complaints than non-users", indicating that depression suffers may be using cannabis for symptomatic relief.

        In the case of schizophreniform disease, linkage is limited to individuals with a specific COMT gene variant, which occurs in 25 percent of the population combined with early regular cannabis use. The study found that 15 percent of those with the gene variant who smoked cannabis regularly before the age of 15 developed schizophreniform disease later in life. The study also found that any one variable—the COMT variant, adolescent cannabis use without the COMT-gene, or post-adolescent cannabis use—was not predictive for developing psychosis.
        They were reinserted unchanged at every one of those four reverts. My common sense tells me here that you were edit warring to introduce/keep sections in the article that were obiously not supported by community consensus (Not one of all the quoted sentences appear in the final version) and thus were validly blocked under the 3RR. --Deprifry|+T+ 06:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

        You might have looked more carefully, your common sense is wanting here,

        • The three reverts I chose were enumerated in the block, they are not random
        • The language you highlight is in the final article, substatially unchanged
        • The language you highlight was sourced
        • The only evidence of lack of community consensus was that Amgine had edited them out, along with much else. It is MrM who started an edit war, from his first revert. How do you pin on me edit war and lack of consensus?

        Your facile approach to this is not unusual, no one asked,

        • Whether MrM was entitled to threaten a block for the reasons he stated
        • Whether the material was sourced
        • Why the inuse flag was reapplied
        • Why Amgine waded into my edit session to make a massive edit in the first place

        This is what is so insideous about how 3RR is used here. The evidence is in the record, but even when claiming to apply common sense you ask only whether you can find four reverts, then stop thinking. StrangerInParadise 17:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

        Proposal to amend WN:Administrators[edit]

        Administrative powers shall never be used to prevail in an editorial conflict. For the avoidance of doubt, actions on the part of any administrator to enforce editorial policies, including but not limited to WN:CS, WN:NOT, WN:OWN, WN:NPOV, shall create a presumption of editorial involvement.

        Administrators found to have intentionally violated this rule shall be subject to de-adminship. They may immediately stand for readminship by popular vote, which shall remain open for seven days. Traditional format for votes applies. The page upon which the vote is taken must bear,

        • specification of the cause of the recent RfDA action
        • listing of links to initial admin grant and all past RfDA actions

        Comments[edit]

        WN:NOT: Wikinews is not an encyclopedia... Try Wikipedia instead. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

        Did you have a point here? StrangerInParadise 07:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        You would have a ways to go to explain why this is not a non sequitur. Specifically, I think you are obliged to explain why this should not be policy, if in fact this is your view. The community, in appointing an administrator, should understand clearly whether they are in fact appointing an editor with special authority in editorial matters, or an administrator empowered to enforce a more narrow- and non-editorial- set of rules. StrangerInParadise 03:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

        If I were to venture a point... not all stories get published. Some end up in the ash bin. This is news, not an encyclopedia, so it moves along. No it is not a personality thing, it's a we don't dwell on it thing. -Edbrown05 07:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

        Not all stories get published, nor should they. I don't believe we three disagree on that, though on Wikipedia, not all articles remain, either. Amgine and I just concluded an interesting dialog on his reasoning, and his view of the role of rules, community and accepted practice. I have retained them for my personal reference. I would, with his permission, like to publish them as they do bear on the discussion here. I do not expect that permission to be forthcoming. StrangerInParadise 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

        Write some thing new. -Edbrown05 08:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

        I don't care about an dialogue you had with George Foreman. -Edbrown05 09:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

        I needa muffler, and an advocate! -Edbrown05 09:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

        OK, now your confusing me. StrangerInParadise 09:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        It's no big deal; just keep writing good articles and then you won't be confused. Some seeds become trees; most don't; you can't control the environment; just yourself; so just think about the good work you've done in collaberation with others and do more; that's my humble opinion. Neutralizer 17:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        I'm flattered you see me as having been writing good articles. My question is: who decides what is a good article? Certain administrators on this site have used sysop powers to enforce their personal judgements on what constitues a good article, rather than allow their stature as editors to create consensus. This is quite un-Wikimedia and a dangerous corruption of institutional NPOV.
        Perhaps, as this is not Wikipedia, there is a good reason to run the site like that. One could make several rational arguments for it. If this is the will of the community, it should be discussed, ratified and codified. The appearance at present is that administrators are behaving as a class of privileged editors, but there is no evidence that the community ever intended them to do so. StrangerInParadise 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

        A few more comments from an equal editor, on the Proposal to amend WN:Administrators, perhaps altering the RfDA page format purely to enhance the information content would be better for the two detailed changes at point. For the other aspects I can not comment yet except that my observation is that if a problem exists presently that can not be otherwise solved, it will likely not be until it is so enormous that it severely handicaps site operations-and that even then it will be difficult to make any sort of strict decision to resolve it. Administrator authority is limited however, and though even that limited authority empowers it is not enough to allow any administrator leverage over any other absolutely. At least to me the way to help solve general policy adherence problems is to encourage qualified users to increase the numbers of Administrators such that the Administrator community will follow policy in sum regardless of individual irregularities. Opalus 06:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

        Who is to enforce this policy? Who is to decide who should be subject to de-administration? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 06:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

        Currently you don't need a reason at all to list someone for de-admin at WN:A. As far as I can see, this proposal would actually limit the de-admin procedure. --Deprifry|+T+ 06:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        Excellent point. This wouldn't prevent an arbitrary RfDA, however, but only clarify the fact of an actionable breach. It could be expedited to ArbCom, who must determine quickly. This would be a zero-tolerance matter, with no measure of, "Oh, it's not so bad". StrangerInParadise 06:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        I dont think it is giving people reason to RfDA (that is already in place), the way it is written vests this power for these matters in someone different all together - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        Just to clarify. You want the ArbCom to have the authority to actually de-admin people or only to determine whether a RfdA is arbitrary instead of actually justified? And on the tolerance matter, I think there should be discretion. An admin who has done months of good work shouldn't be desysopped for one mistake. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        I've given it some thought: if the ArbCom finds that an admin violated the restrictions in the proposal, then yes, they should desysop him immediately. Violations of these restrictions are not trivial, and are not the sort of things one might do "accidentally". These are bright-line standards. Such a sysop could stand again for election immediately, which would last seven days, a timeout equal to the offence. I don't see how this would be onerous. StrangerInParadise 03:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
        On a side note, You do realize that all arbitaratoirs are admins. I agree with this proposal. In the past there hasn't been enough admins to do this, but I think the time is right to do this. However, in my humble opinion, zero tolerance is inheritanly bad. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        I agree with the proposal and share Bawolf's concern. How about allowing arbcom to hand out one warning, but only in the case that they have strong evidence that the admin in question will change his/her behaviour. (This will be difficult to formulate into policy, but I believe this is necessary as in the past admins have agressively insisted on their "right" to behave in ways that this proposal is trying to curb.) --vonbergm 02:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        Regarding zero-tolerance, I hear what bawolff is saying (I was composing this response as Vonbergm posted his). My point isn't so much that it should be punitive, as to establish that violation in any degree is still a violation. In conflict-of-interest matters, there is no such thing as "a little bit pregnant". I would point out in passing that, contrary to policy, 3RR has become an exercise in zero-tolerance on Wikinews. Let's examine the proposed result and some alternatives for when ArbCom finds there has been a violation,
        • (currently proposed) strips offending admin, who stands for reappointment for seven (7) days
        • strips offending admin, who stands for reappointment for some significant fixed period less than seven days
        • may decline to strip offending admin, unless injured party objects (possibility of negociated settlement)
        • may decline to strip offending admin, unless anyone objects (possibility of negociated settlement)
        • may decline to strip offending admin, but only on first offense (one gimme)
        I could thus see supporting some flexibility in required action, provided recidivism is barred and the determination of violation is not compromised. To consider: how easy is it to accidentally violate the proposed rules? The clearer the guidelines, the more confidence with which many new admins can be appointed. In contrast to the current situation, this is the real mark of an open community with few rules.
        StrangerInParadise 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        Cough - meta:Instruction creep. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        Sorry, you are clear we are discussing choosing among only one of these clauses, not all of them? One penalty clause is not instruction creep. In several years of Wiki editing, I have never been tempted to block another user, in part because WP:VAND,WP:NPOV and WP:3RR have not been so blurred with administrative whim as here. If people want to ignore all rules, they need to respect and insist upon the underlying principles. This is not happening here. StrangerInParadise 02:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
        Too me, even with one, it still seems instructions creep. However there seems no better alternitave. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 19:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

        For Objection Resolution Only[edit]

        To rejuvenate for a strictly focused discussion, I request that any objections remaining as of clarification of the proposal made by Brianmc, repeated below with time frame aspect removed, be described here directly so that they can be resolved directly and the revision adopted if it is at all possible. I am responsible for the failure of the vote perhaps, but it is also not necessary to hold a vote as only the settling of any and all objections remains for this particular proposal; it leaves the time frame for its application to be defined solely by practice rather than rule.

        • 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." Opalus 22:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        As this was intended only to prompt discussion on what objections there are and how to resolve them, will you describe what you object to in the single and only proposed modification here? Opalus 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        Read my other posts. I'm too tired to repeat what has already been said. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        Apologies. Every one of your posts the objection made was satisfied by comments made in the previous discussion as far as I am able to interpret them. The intent is appropriately limited to that of reporting for education and for external review. There is no mandated delay for administrative actions, whatever the community reaches in sum will be the time frame used and that will include the administrators acting in practice for what is needed. When you are rested, please describe any remaining objections to the specific and only the specific revision described above and further detailed here in response and settling of your objections to past versions as I have been able to interpret them. Opalus 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        A brief extension: By detail given by Nyarlathotep that expedited repeated review, it seems that I failed to account for any meaning of the comment "if no one is going to ask for them," do you mean that it should be added that it only be done for registered users while 3RR based blocks involving anonymous users and particularly the characteristic repeat vandals (WillyOnWheels, etc.) should not be documented? I will agree to this exception, that the revision only applies to registered users, however adding it might make the proposal awkward; what of the following: "Any administrator who imposes a block for an unlisted 3RR violation involving registered users should list the reverts on WN:ALERT; this excludes discernible repeat vandals." Respond when rested. Opalus 02:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        Relevant posts appear to be:
        1. Additionally, delaying Admin actions does not help anyone... therefore, they should not be required to be posted on ALERT
        2. I have no problem of admins putting them there, I just don't think it should be required.
        3. 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
        4. 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.

        Um, MrM, 3RR isn't for preventing vandalism, so it doesn't need to be enacted instantly, plus the proposals have basically been "before the end of the block". Its not really trivial to read the article history in many of the 3RR violations I've seen, its less work for one person to post than for others to hunt about. As for no one looking, I wouldn't feel comfortable applying a 3RR block unless I'd actually looked at the individual edits, so it'd seems like just be a matter of cut & paste, as far as I can imagine. OTOH, if another admin looks & doesn't see all the reverts, they may mistakenly revoke the block, thus forcing the original admin to go add the stuff after its nolonger fresh in his mind.

        I'm going to make an "orthogonal" change to WN:ALERT which (a) I think you'll support and (b) may help this debate along. Nyarlathotep 02:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

        What use are policies which have been developed by the community if they are not followed?[edit]

        As I have said on the Miscellaneous water cooler page, there is little use having policy if they aren't followed by administrators. Something that concerns me and seems to have been overlooked with the recent 3RR issue is the failure to follow the policy correctly. There was an argument that as it was a particular user's second offence that the block should have been quadrupled. Unfortunately WN:3RR doesn't give such powers, administrators can not use their discretion to impose blocks, they should follow the policy. I dont think the fact that other administrators reversed the block is an issue here, the fact of the matter is that the original block did not conform to the policy.

        If there is to be an argument about extending penalties (because that is what a block is) for repeat offenders, this should be subject to community scrutiny just like any other policy proposal.

        If administrator's do not follow policy how can the rest of the community follow policy - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 04:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

        It seems to have been the result of consideration of the Wikipedia policy as elder so perhaps more comprehensive and treated as having some influence. Still, if we are to increase penalties by some mechanism, let us define it in our policy here, or define in policy here some guidelines for how that sort of inter site policy influence can be interpreted for appropriateness and by it perhaps discussions on how it could be used to benefit this site, or if we are adopting some external policy exactly from Wikipedia, why not simply copy it to this site's policy directly and subject it to debate within this community for that copy's status here? Opalus 04:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        I wasn't aware that that is how things work on Wikipedia. However, I agree that if it is to be used on WN, then it should be specified in our policies, if only for clarity's sake - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 06:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        Apologies. A bit of research, it is not policy so much as convention and for vandals rather than in 3RR violations in the located sentence REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Vandalism "There are various rules of thumb by which sysops decide how far to extend the blocks of habitual vandals, none of which is formal policy." This is very close to my thought at the time, but I was not precise in the casual comment or in recollection of status of the practice. Still, it does show another instance where the matter of escalating sanction, even though it has not been defined officially, is accomplished by some vague "rules of thumb" that are used. As those are not defined so far as I am able to find yet, I can not say more than that they are possible explanation of the concept of escalating sanction used here. Opalus 06:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        I think Amgine is obliged to weigh in here on to what extent he believes that admins should be bound by Wikipedia policy, or to what extent he believes there should be a separation of editorial and administrative powers at all. The present notion of disruption is so inclusive as to apply no limits to administrative powers. StrangerInParadise 07:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        I've just reread Wikinews talk:Blocking policy, which is a good encapsulation of how the guidance of rules has given way to the tyranny of personalities. Savor if you will the potential for abuse in the phrase, trouble-makers who are not contributing to our goals. I'd like to see more comment on my two proposals, Proposal to amend WN:3RR and Proposal to amend WN:Administrators. -StrangerInParadise 04:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        I agree that the blocking policy is a little to soft worded. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 06:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        As has been mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, the 3RR is a form of disruption of the site so common it has a specific policy regarding it. However, it is still a form of disruption, and the disruption policy includes the following:
        repeat violators may be blocked progressively longer, up to 30 days.
        For this reason it has been the established practice on Wikinews to increase blocks for repeat offenders, usually trusting the judgement of the admin applying the block. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        With an ever-increasing pool of new administrators, bright-line guidance is needed, and the things excluded in my proposals should never, ever be options for admins. The term disruption is far too broadly applied in practice. The present situation does not pass the bus test, i.e. it is overly reliant on personalities, rather than clear principles. I'm still getting over, "trouble-makers who are not contributing to our goals". StrangerInParadise 07:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        I'm sorry to hear this is your opinion. It is a clear tradition in Wiki communities to avoid creating rules and guidelines, and to repeal or remove them whenever and wherever possible when they have been applied. The community is constantly changing and needs to deal with current and extant issues, and may be handicapped by a creeping encrustration of "clarifying" rules and guidelines. This is why policy on this and other wikimedia projects is first and foremost the way things are done, and then the way communities decide to do things after discussion. Yes, it means we reinvent the wheel with some regularity. But it also means we're nimble enough to jump off it when it runs away from us in a direction we don't want to go. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        This argument would carry more weight if you could say which of the things prohibited in my simple proposal ought to be available to admins. The blurring of administrative and editorial powers is not flexibility, certainly not here. Worse, it is unclear that it is sanctioned by the community at all. When you have an admin calling purely editorial actions "disruptive" and throwing blocks, NPOV is undermined. You are far from demonstrating necessity here. As to the policy of other Wikimedia projects, separation of administrative and editorial powers is fundamental. The dictum "ignore the rules" is a guideline, not an invitation to use power against others unchecked by rules: in this sense the dictum should apply to everyone but admins. Finally, I cannot help but notice that when I simplified the rules, you did not hesitate to revert. StrangerInParadise 11:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        I can understand there being established conventions but the problem is as we grow as a community these need to somehow be communicated to those who join us. At present there seems to be a bit of a cloud over certain issues/policies/conventions - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 04:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

        If you all hate the way I follow policy, then let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I only block when there is policy violations. If you feel I've done the same, have a good reason that would imply beyond "assuming good faith" and post it on ALERT, or contact your favorite administrator (talk pages are standing by). Remember, you must have reason based on WIKINEWS policy that would support your proposed actions. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

        MrM, please stay constructive. (Previously you made a similar suggestion, just to turn around and block the unsuspecting user who took your "invitation" to put your behaviour to the wikinews policy test.) It seems that the purpose of this discussion is that although your behaviour is considered by several people as unacceptable, there is no policy in place to force you to change your behaviour. --vonbergm 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
        Are you saying that there were no issues highlighted with the recent events? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 06:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
        Not at all. I just wanted to point out that there have been many discussions on this behaviour that you describe as problematic (and I agree with your assessment). At the same time I would like to caution you that MrM has spend much effort on ensuring that "WIKINEWS policy" will not disallow his destructive behaviour. And yes, I am sure you will find a rule that he has broken here or there, but as MrM suggests, all of us have. At issue here is the agressiveness with which MrM pushes his POV and bullies other editors, and the arrogance with which he insists that all his actions are justified, even if they include clear but minor policy violations. But there is no "WIKINEWS policy" to curb agressive behavour or failure to admit mistakes (so that they could be avoided next time). --vonbergm 07:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
        I was actually referring to MrM with my question - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 07:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        MrM, The policy violation I am referring to your 4 day block when 3RR policy dictates 24 hours. You may have imposed a longer block based on "disruption" but this was not the stated reason when you blocked the said user - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 07:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        Vonbergm, I am going to take exception to your characterization of MrM's behaviour as "clear but minor policy violations". First, admins don't get to make even "minor policy violations", and certainly not repeatedly. Second, his violations are not minor. Consider the violations in this one edit,
        • The items in the edit were well-sourced
        • The items in the edit were NPOV
        • Even if either of these assertions are false, both are editorial matters, in which admins do not enjoy special privilege to rule summarily
        • Even if either of these assertions are false, both are editorial matters, for which the next prescribed step is negotiation (i.e. ask for a source, or cite an NPOV alternative)
        • The specific offending items were not identified
        • There is no basis in policy for blocking on one partial revert, but it is nevertheless threatened
        • Even if it were, MrM is now editorially involved, which means that per WN:BP he cannot block (but subsequently does, for four days, claiming both 3RR and disruption)
        • The items are now part of the story, so how POV and unsourced could they have been then?
        • They {{inuse}} flag was restored to prevent other edits, though the article had not been edited for one hour twenty (1:20).
        This is not a "minor policy violation", this is several major policy violations. This is an admin starting an edit war, then using the block to prevail in it. On review by several admins, none saw a problem with the editorial involvement or the inaccuracy, but thought the 4-day ban was a bit "over-the-top". Nothing is more fundamental than the separation of administrative and editorial powers. Nothing. It goes to the very heart of the Wikimedia Foundation tenants, NPOV. We need to stop making excuses and treat this with the gravity it merits.
        StrangerInParadise 08:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
        I would encourage you to reread the blocking policy. The relevant rule states “users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict”. This does not mean an admin can not block a user currently engaged in conflict merely that they should ask some one else to do it or not block them, and think very carefully before blocking the user themselves. An admin is not prohibited from blocking any user (except as part of an arbcom ruling). Secondly I would dispute this rule even applied, the rule requires you to be currently engaged in conflict, not as you stated 'editorially involved'. Even so, what difference would it have made who blocked you, you made four reverts in 24hrs, breaking the 3rr, you get a block end of story.
        No one person can start an edit war. An edit war requires at least two people to exist.
        Why should an admin not get involved editorial matters? Admins are editors first, and admins second. We become admins by being good editors, why shoud we stop being an editor just because we became an admin? You seem to think admins should not be a special class of users (nor should they be), but you also think that admins should be involved in editorial matters essential creating a special class of users.
        While it is only slightly relevant, I would also like to know why you think 'admins don't get to make even minor policy violations'. Admins are just regular users with a few extra buttons, the general consensus of the community has been you should only lose your adminship for really big mistakes. --Cspurrier 15:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
        Odd you should say that, No one person can start an edit war, I was accused of doing just that. I admitted to three reverts, here used as examples, please find a fourth one that doesn't involve an absurd stretching of stated policy.
        Your contention that an administrative revert initiated with,Revert back to last version by Amgine... many items are still NOT SOURCED and are POV STATMENTS. Continutation of inclusion of these items will result in a block., is not an engagement in conflict is pure sophistry. Further, WN:3RR differs from WP:3RR in two key points:
        • First, the clause prohibiting partial revert has been deleted
        • (WP:3RR) "Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours."
        • (WN:3RR) "Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours"
        • Second, the clause prohibiting administrative involvement in reverting has been deleted
        Administrator involvement
        Except in cases of spam and vandalism, an administrator should not block users for 3RR if they themselves have reverted that user's edits on that page. Instead, administrators in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken.
        • (WN:3RR) [section deleted in toto]
        To put an even finer point on it, Amgine specifically indicated to me that the formulation of 3RR on Wikinews differs to that of Wikipedia, and that I should consult it. Now, how is one to know which applies? You cannot have it both ways.
        Finally, as I have said, there is no reason that an admin shouldn't be involved in editorial matters, provided he does not use SysOp powers (or the threat thereof) to prevail in (or preempt) what would otherwise be a negotiated editorial settlement. Admins may be respected editors, they are not privileged editors. If it were so, the very foundation of NPOV enforcement would be undermined, as the rules enforced by admins are to be objective and without bias, whereas editorial matters are a contention of biases which result in something less biased. If I encounter administrative force on a story I am writing about anti-cannabis laws, I should not be concerned that the admin so doing has declared anti-cannabis biases. When I look at the many admin errors in this matter, one cannot help but be. The only conclusion to be drawn from your reasoning, Craig, is never disagree with or resist an admin, they are entitled to do whatever they want, without accountability. That Wikinews bears the Wikimedia Foundation logo says this is clearly not on.
        StrangerInParadise 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
        I have rarely seen an edit summary so accurately defining the edit made: Pure sophistry. - Amgine | talk en.WN 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
        If you had not pounced on that, Amgine, I would have been a bit disappointed. Nevertheless, here we are in a situation where, in response to a vague, ill-defined threat, the boundry between policy and unfettered authority is intentionally blurred, relying on either a tortured reading of the rules or overriding necessity as justification for ignoring the rules. Will your War on Disruption never be over? StrangerInParadise 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

        General POV problem preventing publishing of articles with content not supporting U.S. government views and values[edit]

        This is a bizarre situation that just drags Wikinews in shame. I can just conclude that some wikinewsis suffer from neurotic patriotism that ruins the possibility of reporting on U.S. actions around the world.

        Proposals to solve this desperate situation:

        • Create a U.S. Wikinews separate from Wikinews

        The reasons for writing this are the censor-like editing and sneaky ways to block publishing of this article and other than reporting about the U.S. way of handling things.

        Better solutions are more than welcome International 04:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

        There is a tendency here to assume implicitly that CNN, BBC, and other major media are bias-free, where in fact they most often show bias by omission. Sometimes that bias is simple ignorance, rather than some explicit agenda. This presents an excessive POV burden-of-proof for one reporting anything outside of that bias. Only objective adherence to the key editorial rules of WN:SOURCE, WN:NOT, and WN:NPOV can level this, but instead these principles are regularly misapplied ("BBC doesn't have it, must be POV", or worse, "both BBC and CNN have it, must be international").
        This presents a real danger of Wikinews becoming little more than a free-content transformer of corporate news. I do not believe that the solution is a national(istic) Wikinews, this would only make things worse.
        Additionally, this negotiated contention of biases can only happen where admins do not enjoy special privileges in these matters. The evolution of the Abu Graib story are a prime example of the current problem. See above for my proposals on 3RR and administrators to remedy this. Once the foundation of separation of editorial and administrative function is established, only then can better process for editors to work out differences in a timely fashion as equals be developed. Critical among these would be changes to protocols governing title, {{date}}, {{develop}}/{{publish}}, {{inuse}}, and {{cleanup}}. The result will be simpler and more equitable.
        StrangerInParadise 05:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        USA stories (any story) can be kept off the Main Page by applying the [[Category:Local only]] "Category" tag. Then, if I understand the tag correctly, the article will only appear in Categories, or in other words Portals, listed by the story which are also known as the Region and Topic categories . -Edbrown05 08:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        For example, a Mass Transit story about public transportation in New York city would not appear on the Main Page if it were tagged --> [[Category:New York, New York]][[Category:New York]][[Category:Local only]]. The story would show up the the New York city portal, and the New York state portal. These portals are New York, New York and New York.-Edbrown05 08:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        That really doesn't address his point, does it? His point is not about narrowness of topic, it is about narrowness of perspective. StrangerInParadise 14:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        Does it work for US stories? I know it doesnt work for Australian ones - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        Our place is not to prosecute the current U.S. administration. The inclusion of any image such as that MrM removed is a prosecution-like action. We don't go looking for post-mortem pictures of murder victims to put on court case stories, and I don't see how this is any different. We do not need "protocols" to resolve this, we need people to accept they have a bias and stop trying to push it in articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        To run a story detailing new photos of abuse and not to run the photos opens this site to an obvious POV claim. Your notion of prosecution is only a metaphor, and is not compelling even at face value. The pictures are a fact, what they imply is obvious. They should be run. I should point out that, if anything, my desire to do so is counter to personal bias. I suspect that many of us who want these photos run do not want to believe that our military is capable of this.
        I should also point out that, on looking more closely at the history, it seems that administrators have taken a light hand, and acted properly as just editors. My remarks unintentionally— but wrongly— suggest otherwise. My point regarding the difficulty of working out better ways of coming to consensus in the face of blurring of administrative and editorial powers remains. StrangerInParadise 14:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

        The more I think about this the more baffled I feel about the situation on Wikinews. But as not being an expert at that subject (like the interesting nick of a new Wikinewsie) I still think its worth some thoughts. Is this project hijacked by few very active fools? Do a few more noble users that value NPOV more as a goal in it self than a tool to make good articles, turn a blind eye just to prevent big waves in the pond of aledged amateurjournalism. Or is there the wall of "noble majoritys" POV or structural POV, refered case run into? Opalus wrote this and left and Mrm wrote " Here's your diaper: [6]. Here's your bottle: [7] " and blocked the article with help from his loyal friend in editwar to keep it taged develop/disputed. Anybody get the hint? Can someting be done or is this just what this aledged meritocracy is and falls with? Meritocracy sounds oxymoronic here. International 16:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

        Point of information: I think MrM intended to direct him to indymedia.org. StrangerInParadise 18:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        I'd advise everyone to check the history of the article, check the tag that I added, and check International's comments on the talk page before I made mine. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        You've got to be kidding me. I'm going to be very blunt right now:
        1. Seperating into two different projects will increase Systemic Bias and be a very bad idea
        2. Stop fingerpointing at people
        3. Get on with your life

        Actually thats not as blunt as I thought it would be, oh well. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 17:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

        Oh last point: Local only is evil in my opinion. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 17:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        Bawoulff. You are somewhat right. I wasnt "blunt" enough either. The separating idea is not good but "fingerpointing" is necessary when that problem dont come to a solution. International 14:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

        Article "discussion" page- define discussion[edit]

        Is only discussion of the writing of the article allowed? or is discussion of the news itself appropriate? Neutralizer 22:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

        Only development of article. Anything else has been ruled as a violation of the NPOV policy by consensus. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        Anything else has been ruled as a violation of the NPOV policy by consensus, where did this happen, exactly? StrangerInParadise 00:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        Not necessarily here, its a (very?) old custom imported from wikipedia. Majority feeling here is that other discussions should be off site. Amgine convinced Eloquence and I (maybe others) that off site is the place. People chated with pov.wikicities about it. pov.wiicities liked the idea. Everyone was happy matters were understood. So everybody droped the matter.  :) Nyarlathotep 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

        At some point, I was thinking about making a Template:Discussions which may be added at the *end* of the article and provides a series of links to discussion sites. However, I anticipate big fights over the etiquette & rules for such links, so I'd like to get them right the first time, which basically means making the proposal first to Eloquence via email. Here are some issues to consider:

        1. prevent blogs from advertising / avoid linking anybody too much / never post only one link unless its pov.wikicities
        2. maintain variety of opinions in the linked discussions
        3. keep the quality of linked discussions as high as possible
        4. minimize linking to sites with high barrriers to posting

        Any two of the above guidlines actually contradict one another at times. For example a MetaFiler discussion is likely to have many many more insightful links than even a Slashdot discussion, especially per page, but MetaFilter only maintians such quality be being a pay to post site.

        Anyway, its a nontrivial proposal to work out, but it probably keep people passing through our articles more. Nyarlathotep 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

        This is inconsistent with my experience (of several years) of Wikipedia, where issues were often discussed and questions raised, often not specifically related to the article (though never to the detriment of the article). Sometimes it is just someone popping in with a comment, a gripe, a challenge, or an idea for something new. This makes sense, if you consider that new directions in an article might not be anticipated initially.
        Discussing one's own Original Research on a talk page is considered in bad taste and discouraged. It is not, though, a specific policy violation.
        All of this is a far cry from MrM's characterization of a violation of NPOV, which I personally find chilling as he tends to reserve all manner of enforcement against anything he perceives as a violation of policy, especially as I simply don't trust his sense of NPOV (I wouldn't expect everyone to trust mine, either). I generally do not think that NPOV is so objective a matter that anyone should be asked to simply accept an admin's unilateral enforcement of it. Forgive me if I'm just over reacting to M's choice of words here: I have concerns when I hear violation of policy regarding something so fuzzy. Talk pages should have a wide latitude of discussion, and I would be concerned about undue a priori constraints.
        That said, I agree that previous discussions here on the matter (generally, and as they may be relevant to WN:NOT) should be respected. I am also interested in the wikicities idea, as it bears some resemblance to the userbox discussions now underway at Wikipedia.
        StrangerInParadise 01:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

        Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about problems with MrM. Everyone who has really thought about the issue, and many who havn't, seem fine with having real topical discussions off site. Nyarlathotep 10:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

        I was talking about four things,
        • On Wikipedia, this standard is neither common practice nor policy, but pushing one's OR on talk pages is not polite
        • MrM's use of the term violation of policy may overstate the matter, with the effect of chilling discussion if he were to try "enforcing policy" based on his subjective sense of NPOV, as he has demonstrated a willingness to do
        • IMO, talk pages should have very few constraints
        • I'm prepared in principle to respect what is decided here on Wikinews, as a wiki separate to Wikipedia
        StrangerInParadise 14:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
        Common practice is to avoid discussions which are not related to developing the article. Check other news sites which support comment/news forums for why; they are largely battlegrounds between competitive POVs. Talk pages on Wikinews have constraints due to previous behaviour on talk pages at Wikinews: news articles tend to be more contentious than encyclopedic articles because of the brief period the article will be editable, and the topics covered are those in which authors have a personal interest.
        Nyarlathotep: please build the templates! I am in regular contact with the admins at pov.wikicities.org, so any issues can be quickly worked out. - Amgine | talk en.WN 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

        Okay, I've created Template:Discussions as outlined above. It goes well beyond the pov.wikicities.com thing, but I think it is more or less appropriate. I've included text asking that titles not be included for discussions which are not formalized debates, as such titles are usually POV. Nyarlathotep 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

        Why allow "Site Disruption" type accusations on article talk pages?[edit]

        I gather that the article talk pages are for discussions related to the article and is not the place for criticisms of individual editors or bickering among them; those criticisms, warnings of disruptive behaviour, warnings of possible blocking and associated bickerings should occur on the editors' talk pages.

        Could we make this into policy?(disallowing personal criticisms of editors on the article talk pages). Neutralizer 17:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

        I have no problem with this Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 18:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        Why do you have an issue with this? Place them wherever the user may see them. No, there's no reason to restrict messages to only their talk page. That is absurd. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        I agree with MrM, restricting content like that to the editor's talk pages could make it difficult for other users participating in the discussion to keep track of what's going on. --Wolfrider 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        I agree with MrM also, if the dispute involves more than an editor and an administrator it should be placed on the article's talk page so that everyone has the opportunity to respond. In the case of bans or warnings, these should be placed on the user's talk page - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        Maybe the question should be reformulated to say: "Why allow bullying on article talk pages (in fact, why allow it anywhere)?" Especially administrators should be extremely careful when making warnings about disruptive behaviour or even warnings about blocks, that these warnings are well grounded in policy. In the recent past we have had examples of administrators grossly misinterpreting policy. If warnings are issued that do not have a sound base in policy, this simply constitutes bullying and should imo be considered as abuse of admin poweres, even if it stays at the warning level and the admin in question never invokes blocks or other tools only available to administrators. --vonbergm 21:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        If you're going to throw accusations around, do as you say vonbergm, and back them up. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        I agree, so-called bullying should not be tolerated on the site and offenders should receive a ban for say a week. Having said that it is unlikely it would ever be implemented as "bullying" can be POV. Having said that I do not feel that comments such as If that's the case, than I have no problem with telling you to join Indymedia, and get the hell out of here - you are no longer welcome. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC) [8] are appropriate and are most certainly counter-productive. Secondly, they are most certainly not in the spirit of Wiki and I would doubt represent the views of any other administrator on this site. In the case of failure to follow policy correctly, I have raised that issue before :) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        I can no longer speculate just how far MrM has to go before someone pulls his ticket. He has routinely censored articles, threated out-of-policy administrative reprisals, sought exemptions for himself, misrepresented his actions to other adimns, and has shown a consistent comtempt for any notion which separates his personal whim from his powers to insure "NPOV", defend against "disruption" or enforce "policy". I have shown this baseless revert, et sequiem to I-don't-know-how many people, with little more than a shrug in response from most. Someone else shall have to speculate for me, I am lost in the maze of rationalizations protecting him from an RfDA. StrangerInParadise 08:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        I'm making tallies of every time you turn a discussion into a jab at me. You are not helping the discussion at all, and you are - in fact - doing exactly what you are supporting to block from happening. But, if that doesn't matter to you - then go ahead. I surely am getting a kick at your view on them, and I still await your action of "awe" (remember, that one you promised a few weeks ago?). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 13:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

        Stop talking and start doing -- throwing barbs at one another is obviously not working. WN:DISPUTE. --Chiacomo (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

        Done. - Borofkin 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

        Userbox/babel templates[edit]

        Following the recent deletion of the Userbox/babel templates, I request that a policy is put in place to protect the rights, with in reason to have userboxes.

        I will be writing this policy hand have it written within 2 days for the community to talk about. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

        See my proposed userbox policy here Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        I hope the userbox/babel templates be back soon, frankly i do not understand that deletion of this very usefull/fun way to do a presonnal resume. Jacques Divol 14:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        I would prefer that our userbox policy was word-for-word identical to wikipedias, as I see no reason for them to differ, but I also see no serious problem with the one your posting here. Babel templates, and any templates expressing prior professional journalistic experence, should be brought back immediately, as they are important for the project, especially for increasing participation in the other langauge wikinewses. Nyarlathotep 14:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        I know little about these boxes; is this a "userbox"? And if not, what's the point of these new controls? Neutralizer 14:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        That is not a userbox but an attempt to circumvent the controls on userboxes - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        It would be interesting to see how many people actually had userbox type things on their pages (including and excluding Babel templates) before this conversation began. Based on my own informal survey, very few. --Chiacomo (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        You should look at the meta-analysis of the voting for the proposed policy on wikipedia. Nyarlathotep 17:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        Link? --Chiacomo (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        Please remember, Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Our policies, and community needs, are different. Especially given that the issue has been so very divisive on Wikipedia, and the current behaviour there (including the continued warring among admins which has resulted in at least 5 de-adminships by JWales). - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        I want to respectfully point out that you cannot have it both ways; either Wikipedia is the same, and the userbox issue over there will be an issue over here (and those policies apply)... or, Wikipedia is different, and their policies don't apply, and the userbox crisis won't migrate. ironiridis 20:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        Wikipedia is different, and their policies do not apply. The userbox crisis clearly has migrated. - Amgine | talk en.WN 20:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        I would classify what is happening on Wikipedia as a crisis. I would not classify what is happening here as a crisis. Rather, I would classify it as you having deleted something with a very thin justification. The only "crisis" here is a direct result of that. ironiridis 20:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        Perhaps we have a different measure of crisis. On Wikinews I feel anything which might rise to the level of requiring an ArbCom decision to be a crisis. We have never had a case rise to that level before, though I feel this case clearly does. - Amgine | talk en.WN 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

        I think that there is a difference between Babel templates and userboxes, which are used to express political or religious opinions. The Babel templates are helpful, for example if you need somebody for the help with a non-english source or something like that. Some critisise that userboxes create categories. Yet, there can be userboxes without categories. But what is the difference between a userbox expressing political opinions and expressing opinions with text or images on userpages? What about opinion pages in the user namespace? I think the userboxes have become a problem on Wikipedia because of their large number and because of other problems. Users shouldn't use a userbox to support extremist organisations or other things, which can be interpreted as breaking the law. Wikinews isn't a hosting service for personal websites, but it can be interesting to be informed about the opinions and interests of users, particularly with respect to NPOV in Wikinews articles. If someone expresses the opinion that drugs should be legalized (e.g.) and writes an article about this issue, you can check whether he does it from a neutral point of view dispite his opinion or not. So, the policy should be differentiated, IMHO. It's not right to adopt the policy of Wikipedia in this issue. There can be a own Wikinews policy. --SonicR 20:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

        Thank you; we do NOT have to monkey see monkey do whatever is going on on 'pedia just because some of our janitors hang around that location. Neutralizer 20:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        Userboxes? And if I want to create one for w:OMRLP? Really, it's something that hasn't been used here in the past, and I don't think it should be encouraged. Babel boxes are something that I'm fully in favour of, we should all have a degree of understanding for people who do not have native command over a language. Plus it's handy to ask someone about an article when the machine translation is gibberish. Anyway, if people want to describe their political affiliations and the like, use words. It isn't an immediately identifiable label someone can make a snap judgement on, and it should be good practice for your writing skills for use elsewhere in the wiki. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        And Amgine, the ArbCom thing from my pov is not so much about the issue as it is about the arrogant behaviour..and you know better; just admit it was wrong, settle down, and start writing more; your articles are stunning[9].... you bitchin' about all this bureaucratic stuff is like Picasso quarrelling over the type of canvas; you are a fantastic writer; just let go and tear into the stories; forget all this political/technical crap; you've got a talent,friend; trust me on this. Neutralizer 21:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        Whats wrong with just, as long as it doesn't offend anyone and your not cyber-squating, as for namespace, template: is something I don't see whats wrong with having that material there. If its so bad we could prefix it with user (so template:user blah or template:user:blah). If it matters that much, just create a new namespace. Categories, i'm neutral. we could use special:whatlinkshere instead if you wanted. Last point: Wikinews is not an encyclopedia, so therefor not wikipedia so lets not copy there every move. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        I dont believe that userboxes should be banned so long as they are sensible and dont encroach on other parts of the site. This idea of mine falls because there is no way to confine templates to a namespace other than Template: that is to use the template syntax for insertion, the userbox would have to live in the Template: namespace which in my view, encroaches on the site. Secondly, if userboxes are to be allowed their categories should be Category:Userbox/Mybox so that you can search for users with that particular box on their userpage. This is useful because you might want to find someone with similar interests (the whole idea of a community) or you want want to find someone who has an opposing POV (e.g. you are left-wing and you want a right-wing view) - in this case userboxes would actually enhance POV. A person's userspace should be a place where they can express themselves to other users so others can get an understanding of that person. As for babel templates, even if userboxes are disallowed these should be allowed. We do not need to copy Wikipedia, if I remember rightly, each project is free to forumlate their own policies. Let's do this! We aren't an encyclopedia what works there doesnt always have to work here - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        Yes, we need userboxes and babel and it's important. Of course offensive userboxes must be banned. Personnal page are personnal space were a user could resume him(her)self and images are a good way to do that. Relax, and some humor and "auto-dérision" - is also important Jacques Divol 10:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        I agree that userboxes must not be offensive. I am sure we can enforce that in someway - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        You can use templates for almost all namespace (all excluding some special pages) for example:

        {{special:Recentchanges/3}}:

        List of abbreviations:
        D
        Wikidata edit
        N
        This edit created a new page (also see list of new pages)
        m
        This is a minor edit
        b
        This edit was performed by a bot
        (±123)
        The page size changed by this number of bytes
        Temporarily watched page

        29 July 2021


        {{Mediawiki:Sitenotice}}:
        2021 ArbCom elections — we need volunteers for the election committee by July 29, and nominations for ArbCom are now being accepted till 1600 UTC August 5.



        etc. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

        I wasn't aware one could do that. If that is the case then there is no reason why we couldnt have a Userbox: namespace - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
        I was thinking about that too, we could also use something like misic: or comunity: so we could put other comunity stuff there too, like Wikinews:Australian discussion. As for categories whats wrong with something like Category:User/blah. Even if that doesn't happen we could basicly only use one template with subpages like {{user/random_box_here}} like we do with template:issues. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 04:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

        Interpretations of Blocking policy[edit]

        In the light of recent blocks I am having trouble understanding Blocking policy and its application. As I feel that I am not the only one, and as I believe that having some common understanding on this is important to keep this wiki running smoothly, I would like to solicit thoughts to some questions.

        1) How to block indicates that for each block a "reason" will be given. What is the relationship between a block and the reasons given for the block? Can one block without given a reason? Suppose a reason given for a specific block does not apply, but some other reason does. What should be done?
        2) When blocks may not be used says "Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute is prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict." Is the phrase "should not" to be understood as a recommendation or as disallowing? What is the proper response if someone violates the "should not"?

        --vonbergm 01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

        1. A block reason is a policy requirement; the software allows blocking without giving a reason, but it is considered a breach of policy to do so. Of course there may be extenuating circumstances - I can recall a couple vandal battles where new accounts were being created at the rate of several per second and no one had time for the niceties - but even in those cases when the dust settles a report should be made to WN:ALERT explaining what happened.
        2. The phrase should not is a reccomendation, and should be considered a severe opprobrium to do so. Again, there are extenuating circumstances which would justify doing so: when a user appears to be vandalizing willfully (perhaps in reaction to the dispute with the admin) or is otherwise violating policy seriously and no other admins are available for appeal. Again, any questionable block should immediately be brought to WN:ALERT with a request for review by other admins.
        One issue to keep in mind is that a user may consider themselves to be engaged in a conflict with an admin while the admin is unaware of any such conflict. The opposite is equally true. Where an admin and a user are not editing the same articles, and the admin's only interaction with the user is in their position as an admin enforcing policy (not involving content disputes), there is probably not a conflict between them. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        From my knowledge of legal document protocol, I believe that a heading title trumps the content wording when there is a difference between the two; When blocks MAY NOT be used is the title of the section. I think the "MAY NOT" in the title supercedes any liberal interpretation of the phrase "should not" in smaller print below. The use of the phrase "should not" was simply a polite way of saying "Don't Do It!". This is something I'm pretty certain about (that the MAY NOT in the section title prohibits blocks against someone with whom the blocker is engaged in conflict). Neutralizer 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        Amgine, thanks for the quick response. To your point 2). Would you say that "Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute is prohibited." is "likewise" only a recommendation? (What else could "likewise" mean?) And I am very curious to hear if you have any thoughts on the parts of point 1) that you have not commented on yet. --vonbergm 04:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        <grin> I was trying to avoid the kind of wide-open part of the question 1, because I'm still not certain I know what you were asking. Let me give it a shot.
        A block should be given for a specific reason, supported by policy. This will be reflected in how long the block may be for. If the reason given for a block is inaccurate, but another basis for a block exists, the discrepancy should be noted on the WN:ALERT page, and the message left on the user's talk page. If the block duration would otherwise be unchanged, I would not unblock to reblock personally.
        No, I would say the use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute is prohibited. If a need arose to block a user with whom the admin is engaged in a content dispute (assuming there are no other admins to call on, which I *hope* is never the case anymore) the only reasonable solution would be to block the user and revert the article to a point previous to the content dispute, and for the admin to avoid editing that article. If there is no point prior to the disput, the article should be appropriately flagged and the admin should not further edit the article. The block should also be put on the WN:ALERT for review.
        I need to throw out a disclaimer here, however: these are my thoughts regarding policy. I trust that each admin is able to make reasonable judgements most of the time, but not necessarily all of the time. If an admin makes an error in judgement, that should be acknowledged and the situation set right as best may be done. I expect that would be the opinion of all admins; at least I hope so. - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        Amgine, makes sense to me. I believe that the reason for a block is very important as a block looses all its "educational" value if the wrong reason is given. About your clarification on 2), I can follow that interpretation only if the word "likewise" is ignored. If it is not ignored, I think that Neutralizer's explanation seems equally, if not more reasonable. I am curious to hear what other people think. --vonbergm 06:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

        Arbcom has no authority to be Addressing or Setting Wikinews Policy![edit]

        Arbcom is for dispute resolutions between users and to provide remedies for unacceptable behavior, not remedies for the project at large through general policy or site changes. I assume Arbcom has gone off-track completely unintentionally but hopefully the community will be alert to this real threat to the entire collaborative nature of this project. If a committee of 6 is going to be setting/changing/addressing Wikinews policy; then this project has ended; I think.Neutralizer 19:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

        You're looking at this funny. ArbCom will interpret current policy to provide a ruling on the dispute. They will not write policy, but may - a-la Supreme Court - interpret policy to reach a judgement and clarification for future disputes. Now, let them get on with their job and work on contributing to the main namespace. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
        • You're saying black is white. Here is a proposed policy change. Here are some more[10]"A moritorium is put on the creation of, deletion of, and undeletion of userboxes for the duration of the RfAr" and[11]3.3.4 Userbox creations are restricted until policy is developed3.3.5 Userboxes using the Category and Template namespaces are restricted to localization and language identification3.3.6 Userboxes using the Category and Template namespaces are prohibited.There is no question that these items listed above are policy making items; NOT interpretation of existing policy. Neutralizer 21:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
        I agree with ArbCom making temporary policy changes so long as they address an issue before them. With the userbox issue, it was the precursor to Amgine's alleged administrative misconduct, as such ArbCom should act to stop it form happening again. Frankly, without a temporary policy there is nothing stopping another admin from deleting the userboxes and then saying "but there isnt a clear policy to deal with that". If ArbCom is explicit it stops people from hiding behind ambiguity. Having said that following the ArbCom process the community should develop it's own strategies to deal with issues raised in ArbCom (which will not be as fast as ArbCom's decisions/changes should be) which would override ArbCom's temporary policy. This is how I see it and I am probably missing the point all together :) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)