Wikipedia talk:Wheel war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Merge 2 Policy 3 Applications 4 History 5 Post-merge changes 6 Clarification 7 Substantive discussion 7.1 Side trip 7.2 Back to talk 8 Final response to John Reid 9 Some thoughts 10 Shorter and Clearer is Better

[edit] Merge

Prior to this merged version, wheel warring was discussed on several different pages. Besides talk pages and a number of lesser pages, this page -- under this title -- described wheel warring in general terms. A feeling arose that a more strictly worded restriction on wheel warring was demanded; this led to a workshop originally titled Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy. This developed 7 different wordings which merged into a single wheel war guideline. Meanwhile, the original page evolved and grew.

Unaddressed until now has been the question of what we are doing with two different pages that speak to the same issue. Various editors called for a merger, which I have indeed completed. The key concern with merger was that each former page contained radically different wording. I believe the solution is to understand that each former page spoke to the wheel warring issue from different angles. Neither contradicted the other. Rather, one page attempted to guide admins away from wheel warring with terms subject to interpretation; application of such guidelines require mature judgement and use of balancing tests. The other page set a bright-line rule: touch it and you "die".

Forgive a lifelong graphic designer if I see things in graphic terms. Admins are permitted a great range of actions (not to scale). Some of these are unwise and quite possibly forbidden by other policies; some of these are reverts of other admins. These do not always overlap; an admin might block a user with whom he's had a content dispute; or an admin might unblock a blocked IP after hearing a plea from another user at the same dorm. When they do overlap, though, it's a sign of real trouble. Somewhere within the overlap area is wheel warring, as defined by this page's guidelines; this may very well be subject to sanctions but the definition is a bit fuzzy. Finally, there is a certain very definite type of action clearly forbidden by policy.

I have used the terms policy and guidelines here to indicate the relatively strict and lax natures of the two sections. Both former pages achieved guideline status before the move and I have retained the tag; I expect this to pass into Wikipedia official policy in time. Meanwhile, I hope nobody feels the need to try to rename these two sections; the terms are familiar, therefore understood by the casual reader. The intent is to suggest that when a given action is prohibited under the policy section it is really not subject to much debate. While the provisions of the guidelines section are very widely accepted, the truth is that in any given wheel war, some significant faction will claim they do not apply to them. This subtlety is best conveyed with the two short words; any explanation is almost surely to be ignored in the heat of the moment -- which is the time when clear understanding is key. We hope that even seriously upset admins will recognize that they are crossing a bright line when they violate policy.

For clarity, two large sections are broken out onto subpages:

Wheel war/Commentary:

This preserves some trenchant comments on the subject of wheel warring from several discussions; also, prior versions are here linked.

Wheel war/Examples:

This includes a list of hypothetical cases as they pertain to bright-line 0WW and summaries of several ArbCom proceedings in which wheel warring was cited.

Note also the talk page archive index at Wheel war/Archive.

This merger is an important stage in a long-running effort by a great many editors; I, personally, have worked hard on it. Yet it is not "finished". I expect editors to express their concerns directly and, if necessary, edit this page. John Reid 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nice work! >Radiant< 14:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

As noted on the village pump, this page should be policy since it's both actionable and consensual, it's a pretty clear case of "don't do that", and has already been upheld by several arbcom decisions. I've put a {{proposed}} up so that we can discuss the wording. I'd be happy to hear people's opinions on, or objections to, this. (Radiant) 13:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Two concerns that I believe need to be dealt with before this can become policy:

• The Application section is rather confusing, to say the least. It defines certain portions of itself as policy but not others, and uses an "in the nth degre" terminology I've never seen used in any other policy. (Was that wording used in an arbcom ruling or something?)
• If we're making this policy, can we please rephrase the opening "Most editors (and admins) tend to agree that wheel wars are not good." to something just a bit stronger? From the intro it sounds like Wheel Warring is about as forbidden as sarcasm.

One last thing that may or may not be a concern is that there are several MeatballWiki links which don't seem explicitly relevant to the subject.

Other than that, agreed, let's make it a policy as soon as possible. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 15:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've done some heavy editing, in particular removing the parts that seemed redundant. Short, clear policies are better than convoluted, verbose ones. Please copyedit. (Radiant) 13:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

MeatballWiki is the metawiki of them all. The central discussion revolves around how to run a wiki and is required reading for anybody interested in Wikipedia major policy issues. It does not itself have much in the way of rules and discussion sprawls out, sometimes into irrelevancy. If you hunt through the pages, though, you find a lot of real gems. John Reid ° 07:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of Meatball Wiki, but not the relevance of the linked page to this particular policy. --tjstrf talk 11:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I likewise am aware of Meatball and have read quite a bit of it, but fail to see what you refer to at this point. (Radiant) 15:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing that should be present before this page transitions into full-fledged policy is what state a page/user should be in while things are resolved as per process. While the community debates, should a user be left blocked or unblocked, a page deleted or undeleted and protected? Even if this is made clear on the relevent process pages, it would be good to have the information duplicated here, for ease of application. -Toptomcat 15:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting question. I believe that would fall under m:the wrong version, and it pretty much depends on what the situation is. A rule of thumb might be "whatever state the account/article was in before the wheel war started". I believe that editors should in general not be blocked while their status is under debate; for articles it should be less big of a deal. (Radiant) 15:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I like that rule of thumb. Can we state it somewhere in the article? Any objections? -Toptomcat 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I object. You raise a good point, Toptomcat; I don't know what solution is best but I agree it's worth thinking about, perhaps addressing. But before we try to improve this, we must stop destroying it. John Reid ° 00:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? -Toptomcat 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. Can you please clarify your meaning, Mr. Reid? -Toptomcat 19:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applications

Above, I've tried to explain in some detail why this topic is broken into two different, though overlapping categories of offense. The terms in the first degree and in the second degree are very common in law and well understood; if they haven't been used in other policies, perhaps it's because our community feels that they are all-or-nothing rules and all infractions are equal. I derive the two clases of forbidden action directly from the two pages which I merged; each stood as a guideline for some time, each prohibited some actions and called them wheel wars; but they forbade different things and did so in different ways. I don't think they ever did conflict but I have preserved the distinction as an honest reflection of our record in labeling and reacting to these threats to public order. Please hang onto the terms; they are needed. Otherwise, it's difficult for somebody to say, clearly, that Admin A violated this policy at some time, in some place "in the second degree but not in the first". Thank you. John Reid ° 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Better still, you simply explain exactly what they did it in plain english. Call it "disruptive wheel warring", or "protracted wheel warring", or use any other term that's not unparseable idiomatic jargon to outsiders. I have no issue with the concepts of first and second degree inherently, but a huge issue with that specific terminology. --tjstrf talk 11:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

However, people who aren't versed in law are likely to not have heard of them. WP:NOT a bureaucracy, avoid needless complication. What we need is a single definition of "wheel warring", not two; otherwise editors will just get confused since most of them aren't used to legalese. (Radiant) 15:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, none of that works at all. If you continue the way you are going, you are going to burn nearly a year's worth of work by any number of editors. Keep cutting and you will be left with the original, vague statement: Wheel warring is admins reverting each other and that's bad. That wasn't enough then, it's not enough now.

All wheel warring is disruptive -- highly so. Bright-line wheel warring is a subset of wheel warring in general but that doesn't mean it is somehow more destructive; it's simply easier to define. Two different, but not conflicting definitions of wheel warring are good. The bright line is unambiguous, covers the majority of straight-ahead cases, and is clear and simple enough that it is almost impossible to poke a wikilawyer hole in it. The balancing test is broad enough to cover all other cases but requires judgement and can, therefore, be argued. No single statement can possibly stretch to cover all eventualities with an airtight zipper bag.

Degrees of offense are common legal terms; I doubt anyone who's seen an episode of Perry Mason or CSI can fail to understand that there's a distinction. But it really doesn't matter what you call them. I offered two different, parallel pairs of terms: (policy and guideline) and (first degree and second degree). If Joe Blo can't understand either of these, I don't know how to help. Call them apple and peach if you'd rather. Don't conflate the two. John Reid ° 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] History

Summary of high-water marks in development of this policy:

• [5] -- First version of article.
• [6] -- First instance of project page.
• [7] -- First definition version.
• [8] -- First version advanced as guideline.
• [9] -- Often-cited comment by Jimbo.
• [10] -- First version that mentions a specific sanction.
• [11] -- First version of balancing test that reaches toward bright-line rule.
• [12] -- First version of bright-line rule.
• [13] -- "Seven forks" version/straw poll; the mature state of prior discussion.
• [14] -- First merge of bright-line rule.
• [15] -- State of bright-line rule when merger proposed.
• [16] -- Last version of balancing test version before merge.
• [17] -- In my opinion, the last "good" version -- although open to improvement.
• Wheel war -- Current article.

John Reid ° 08:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-merge changes

John Reid solicited my opinion on my talk page, so I'd just like to say that I wholeheartedly support the simplifications that were made after he made the merge. Philwelch 13:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? John Reid ° 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it cut out a lot of unnecessary crap that added nothing to our understanding of policy and existed only to satisfy your personal sense of order and completeness. Philwelch 02:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a strong comment but does nothing to advance my understanding. What's crap? Why is it crap? Why does it not advance your understanding? What is your understanding? Why do you think the crap satisfied only me? Do you disregard all the work of other editors?

You -- not anyone else -- created the first instance of the bright-line policy. Why did you do this if you felt a simple amendment to the balancing test version was sufficient? I understand that many editors came along and put up competing versions; that's how we got to "seven forks". Are you angry at all of us? Do you discount our comments? When I took the bold step and merged all 7, I put the version I proposed up top -- not because it's "mine", but because a very strong consensus emerged in favor of that version above all others. Do you disagree? Were we all wrong? The bright line merge stood for several months as guideline without any attempt to destroy it. Where were you?

If you're here just to fling crap, why? In the long run, that tends to be ignored. Thoughtful editors want to read thoughtful comments. If you're here to shine a new light on an old issue, please, switch it on. John Reid ° 11:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

John, you asked me to come comment, and I did. I have better things to do with my life than to satisfy your desires here. My policy was shot down. Fine. That doesn't mean I'll support you coming in here and polluting what we do have with a bizarre linguistic quagmire. This is supposed to be a very simple policy governing administrative reversions. The minute you start using legal and pseudo-legalistic jargon to describe Wikipedia policy, you have failed in writing something that will be clearly and quickly understood by Wikipedia's contributors. And to answer just one of your many insulting questions, I don't disregard the work of other editors so much as I don't automatically grant it respect just for being work. You can work for months and months on something that turns out to be utter crap. So I don't care how many people worked on it and how long they worked on it. All I care about is whether it's good for the wiki or not. The first rule of Wikipedia is not to get attached to your own work because it can be discarded or altered at will. I had a hard time with that rule once, and all I can tell you is to accept it gracefully and maintain your own dignity. Philwelch 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My dignity is not an issue here. This isn't a personality issue -- not anybody's personality. This is an issue of addressing substantive comments -- substantively. I don't see it shines any light on anything to call it a "bizarre linguistic quagmire". You get points for vocabulary and loaded language but you don't do anything to explain what's wrong or how it can be made better.

A quick look at diffs shows I'm not overly attached to some particular term or terms. I welcome edits -- here or anywhere else. Make it more clear. Remove barriers to understanding. Contribute, don't tear down.

I don't think "your" proposal was shot down. It served as an important starting point for work that otherwise might not have been done. One editor after another came along and proposed improvements. Nobody's work was simply flushed away -- nobody's. I think most editors at every stage read what everyone else had written and built upon that. I'm not here to defend "my" proposal, either; that too is long gone. Again, check the diffs. The last good version of this guideline had made a great deal of progress since the words I put in half a year ago. I added very little in the merge.

I object strongly to your statement: "I don't care how many people worked on it and how long they worked on it." I have a great deal of respect for other editor's opinions. The more they comment, the more they edit, the more they come to own a proposal. Eventually, it becomes community property. I think the first rule of Wikipedia is not to go around doing things against community consensus "for the good of the wiki". I had a little trouble with that rule myself but I realized quickly that I didn't know what was best for Wikipedia. So, now I simply try to get our community to work together -- and I trust our community to express itself, with occasional prompting. I argue on talk for what I think is right but I don't go around making massive edits to proposals, guidelines, or policy because I know that I know better than all of you do.

I'm sorry if you find my questions insulting; perhaps it's because you don't have good answers to them. When somebody asks me a question and I don't know the answer, I say, "I don't know." I may be ashamed but I don't take offense. If you have no answer to my questions, why not say so? You might go ahead and withdraw your criticism while you're at it, if you have nothing with which to back it up. Or, you might resort -- as we all must from time to time -- to a simple statement that you have a vague opinion that something is not right. On the other hand, if you do have specific answers, why not make them known?

Nothing at all is easier than to drop in on a talk page and say, "This is crap." You did that. Now, you can either back up that statement, bow out, or leave it right there -- an empty statement of opinion. Tossing loaded words into the discussion doesn't help me to understand what you don't like -- and certainly doesn't give any guidance for improvement. John Reid ° 09:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

John, your shamelessness is well established. I'm warning you from my own personal experience, though, that it is also a mistake. Stop being combative and learn to accept when you've lost. I know it's difficult, because I've had to do the same thing, but it will make things much easier for you. Philwelch 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it's a mistake for me to accept your ad hominem criticism? Have I "lost" because I've abandoned any claim to know-it-all? Or have I "lost" because you've refuted the substantive claims I've made? This thread, too, seems to have terminated. When you get ready to make a substantive counterclaim, well, I'll be around. John Reid ° 09:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

I've stricken most of the paragraph that said that "slow" wheel wars must not be called wheel wars because stopping them will aggravate the issue. Per m:the wrong version, that is not the case; stopping a wheel war or edit war is not an endorsement of the present version. (Radiant) 08:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do it bit by bit? Is there some amusement in driving the little tractor back and forth? Why not just blank the whole thing and tag it off? You don't seriously think this is how to create policy, do you?

Meanwhile, the next time you offer a pastiche on other people's words, please do so with a shade more objectivity. Okay? John Reid ° 11:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You do it bit by bit because that way there are chances to discuss if someone disagrees with the new wording. --tjstrf talk 11:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I objected strongly at every turn but no discussion is forthcoming, only more destruction. What's the point? May as well burn it all in one pass. John Reid ° 03:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

John, it would help if you would comment on the changes rather than commenting on the person making them. I have explained to you earlier that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that policy is not, and should not be, worded like a lawbook. That is precisely what I am trying to prevent here. You can look to other policy pages as examples for their style. (Radiant) 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is general, a hand-waving at the entire thing. "It's written like a lawbook, so I shall burn it." My comments have been highly specific and detailed; you have no response. John Reid ° 03:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside the personal sniping above - part of the problem here seems to be that there are very different ideas of what type of actions constitute 'wheel warring'... as I pointed out when this merge was proposed some time back. I think these can be briefly described as;

1. Reverting - Some suggest that any reversal of an admin action is 'wheel warring'. Benefits of this are that, if followed, a single contested admin action prompts discussion and no other action is taken until consensus is achieved. Drawbacks are; (1) a 'first strike' in the face of pre-existing disagreement is 'permitted' and becomes the de facto result until consensus is achieved AND (2) this sometimes gets applied to cases where the reverting admin reasonably felt that the reasons for the original action were no longer valid or that consensus supported the reversion... e.g. removing protection placed two weeks ago by another admin or acting based on a perceived consensus might be called 'wheel warring'.
2. Reverting more than once - Another view is that one admin taking the same admin action more than once is 'wheel warring'. Benefit of this is that it allows an admin a single action which may have been made in the good faith belief that it was/would be supported by consensus. Drawback is that it allows a dozen admins to each revert once each... creating all the negative aspects of a wheel war, but not calling it one.
3. Contested action without consensus - Finally it is sometimes suggested that any admin action taken with the foreknowledge that one or more other admins disagree is 'wheel warring'. Benefits are that it classifies 'first strikes' in pre-existing disputes as 'wheel warring' and allows reasonable 'good faith' reversions where little/no controversy is expected. Drawback is that it allows 'wiggle room' for claiming that one didn't know an action would be controversial.

Currently this page seems to lean towards the second of these (leading to the dispute above), personally I greatly prefer the third, but I see the first get cited most frequently (as in, 'you reverted me! that is wheel warring!'). Everyone agrees that wheel-warring is bad, but we don't agree on which of the three above (or possibly more) it is. I think we need to settle that issue before we can finalize any page on the subject. --CBD 14:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think we should aim for a combination of #2 and #3 (and note that the page does have an example of the "many-on-many" wheel war where every admin does the action only once). While people have been known to argue for #1, it is obviously false that undoing an admin action once is automatically controversial - the unprotection you give is a good example, but so are some undeletes and unblocks. If the original acting admin doesn't object, it's not a war. (Radiant) 14:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And I think you should stop meddling. You have no respect for the guideline status that both of these pages enjoyed prior to merge. You have no basis for your actions -- you're simply burning down the house. I ask you to stop, go back to the last good version, and carefully, from there, make changes and be sure you actually enjoy community consensus on them before you make more. Thank you. John Reid ° 03:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not meddling. It's improvement, taking a phenomenally non-intuitive and esoteric guideline which was unnecessarily confusing (even to administrators) and simplifying it. You do not WP:OWN this page. You have no vested interest in it. You have nothing to gain or lose by its modification, and you're being incivil. --tjstrf talk 04:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

John, you're embarrassing yourself. Philwelch 06:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Tj, you are begging the question. How is this non-intuitive? Why is it confusing? I have claimed that recent edits do not clarify but destroy outright important distinctions. Explain why this is not so.

Phil, you are doing your best to make this a personal issue, ducking all substantive questions. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that I'm a rude, ignorant fool who can't see past the end of his own nose. Now explain to this rude, ignorant fool exactly what is wrong with the last "good" version and how razing the whole thing to the ground is an improvement.

I play very close to the net, friends. I don't just object to what you say; I try very hard to understand your objections. From a morass of general boos, personal attacks, and literal flinging of "crap", I have extracted exactly one substantive criticism: You don't like the expression "in the first (second) degree". I have to assume that's all the "legalistic jargon" to which you object, since I don't think you mind the words "policy" and "guideline".

I agree that the terms of degree are relative novelties and if you think you can phrase the distinction between bright-line rule and balancing test better than I, please do go ahead and make that change. Meanwhile, please lay off attempts to deprecate my criticism by calling me a rude fool; I've already admitted that and it changes nothing at all. See Fallacy.

Radiant, meanwhile, and for so long as my substantive and logical points remain unaddressed, please stop hacking away at an expression -- however flawed -- of community consensus. Stop the little bulldozer, turn it off, and talk with us. Thank you. John Reid ° 09:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am talking. Note my several comments on this discussion page. Policy should not be worded like a book of law; I'm rewording it precisely to avert that. That includes terms like "second degree", as we don't want give wikilawyers scope to argue about in which "degree" they were doing something wrong. Also, I once more ask you to leave off the personal attacks. (Radiant) 10:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not talking; you're destroying. Shut off the bulldozer, return the page to the last good state, discuss the changes you propose here, gain consensus for your changes as broad as exists for the last version and I won't have a thing to say.

A "personal attack" is calling you a fuckhead; I haven't done that. I've said I don't like what you're doing. You can't wrap such a cloak about yourself that you are immune to all criticism. Sorry. John Reid ° 11:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Shut off the bulldozer"? You're turning this into a WP:OWNership debate. You don't own this page; you're outnumbered here. Honestly, you claim to be trying to understand, you claim consensus, but you're just one person whining that your preferred version is not being accepted. I know you're personally attached to this policy because it's the cornerstone accomplishment in your "wikicareer". Guess what: policy is hard. And the way you're pursuing this issue is non-productive. I speak from experience. Philwelch 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm outnumbered, therefore I'm wrong. The guidelines accepted by our community are mine, therefore it's non-productive of me to uphold them. WP:HORNS. I think this thread has ground to a halt. John Reid ° 09:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substantive discussion

Paraphrasing the only specific, substantial comments (by CBD):

1. Some say any admin revert is wheel warring.

2. Others say that one revert per admin is okay but a second (or additional) is wheel warring.

3. Some say that an admin action -- the first on a subject -- taken in the foreknowledge that other admins are likely to object is wheel warring.

Other points made:

• All definitions of wheel warring have weaknesses.

• Everyone agrees that wheel warring is bad.

• There is no consensus on the correct definition of wheel warring.

Paraphrase ends here. If CBD feels I've taken undue liberties, he is free to revise it -- or move the whole block down here, out of the personal attack swamp.

I say CBD's points support the last "good" version [18] strongly. There are competing definitions of wheel warring and no single one of these will satisfy our needs. I took this very seriously into account in merging the two former pages.

The competing definitions essentially condemn the first action taken, the second, and the third by a pair of opposing admins. Depending on context, any of these may indeed be considered by our community as wheel warring. But it is very difficult to say when the first action is warring; admins are presumed to take action in good faith, as any other editor. It is a question of judgement when the second action is warring; there are many reasons why the second action may be taken in good faith -- and several why not. In order to determine when either first or second action may be a violation of community policy -- when it is not merely an unwise action but one taken in direct opposition to other admins -- balancing tests must be employed.

I'm sorry if "balancing test" is overly imposing legal jargon; I think it is actually a very plain, English expression that calls to mind the basic notion of Justice: an impartial balancing of arguments on one hand against those on another. This is what must be done to resolve charges of wheel warring brought against first and second actors.

Third actions are much easier to figure out. I do, you do, I do again -- I'm wrong. I can wiggle out of it on a showing that I discussed it with you and you agreed -- but if I know you disagree and I go ahead and do it anyway, again, then I'm certainly in the wrong. There is no need to balance this against intent or the benefit likely to accrue to the community. I'm just plain wheel warring. This kind of bright-line rule is easy to define, easy to apply, and easy to understand. It's just like police tape; the stupidest guy on the street can understand DO NOT CROSS.

Police tape, all by itself, is not enough to keep a society orderly. The cops can't run around wrapping tape around everything that might be "bad". So, in addition to bright-line rules, we have balancing tests. One complements the other, but they remain distinct. Often an action is a violation of both; other times, of one but not the other; and of course, many things of which we do not approve we do not forbid, either.

I contest CBD on the issue of community consensus. Both bright-line and balancing versions of this page achieved guideline status on their own and this was not contested. A large number of concerned editors, many with extensive experience in adminship and policy issues, contributed to each page and commented heavily in straw poll and on talk. I have been careful to preserve the record of these comments in /Archive and /Commentary. I consider all these to illuminate community consensus in the process of formation and as it exists today on the subject of wheel warring.

Consensus does not mean universal agreement and there is none here. There are, however, three points that emerge very clearly from the many pages of comment just noted:

• Wheel warring is very bad. There is nonetheless a lot of it and this must be stopped; clear policy is needed.

• The bright-line prohibition -- in its most recent form, Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it -- is simple, fair, clear, and unambiguous.

• The balancing test -- more difficult to summarize, that admin actions done without discussion, with hostile intent, to provoke, or simply done too often by anyone -- is also necessary to catch the many kinds of wheel war that don't violate the bright line.

(If anyone demands, I will cheerfully return to these points and back up each one with specific diffs -- perhaps a dozen for each point. I'd much rather, though, that any questioning party read through the record himself and make his own judgement. Have I spoken rightly? Or is this all in my head? Do my comments here, now grow from community consensus expressed directly at length in the record? Or did I just cram them in off the top of my head? I may, indeed, be a fool; don't take my word for anything. Prove it for yourself.)

Therefore, since wheel warring is bad, clear policy is needed, and both bright-line rule and balancing tests are required, I strongly suggest that this page be returned to the last "good" version extant before this distinction was destroyed and, from that point forward, be improved with care, respect, and discussion ongoing on talk so as to make the distinction and any other point clear to all. Thank you. John Reid ° 11:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Damn edit conflicts. An hour of my life gone. I agree with you that wheel warring is sometimes hard to call, but I don't agree that the current page doesn't make that point, I think it does in the examples section. I think to me, we should say "Wheel warring is bad, and instances should be stopped in an appropriate manner". Wheel warring is basically a dispute between admins, and so it should generally follow dispute resolution procedure.

• Looking through the Applications section, I can agree with criticisms that it is overly technical in its language. I have no real idea what "Wheel war policy is a bright-line rule; wheel war guidelines invite balancing tests." means, although at a guess I'd say it means policy is policy and guidelines are guidelines, and so may be redundant. Now I think this section is introducing the idea of a grey area to the page, something more loosely addressed in the newer version in the Examples section. I think it is entirely possible to have a wheel war that is generally not a bad thing, if it progresses in a fair and balanced manner. I think wheel warring is generally a sign that something else is wrong, which I think the application section again attempts to introduce, noting that "Intent is germane; log summaries and talk page comments may be weighed." I've got to say, though, that's a heavy sentence, and it is quite technical. I like the way it is handled in the Examples section a little better, "Perhaps all have acted in good faith, with the best intentions, and in the belief that their actions are supported by policy and community consensus. Nevertheless, dispute resolution is in order here." So I don't think anything has been lost from the page.

• Regarding the Commentary section, I think it does weigh on the page a bit, but I think there may be a case for incorporating the commentary into an essay which is linked too from the see also section of this page, and which details instances better, maybe incorporate it into Wikipedia:What adminship is not or perhaps rethink Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct as an essay, maybe at Wikipedia:Administrator conduct. There should be some instructive reading on this.

• John, I agree with you that there is a sliding scale of wheel warring, but I think the current page serves to explain that. I don't think anyone is rejecting your ideas, just the language you have used. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that wheel warring is basically a dispute. I think it's actually a shame the term has entered the language on Wikipedia, the term "Wheel war" is jargon to me, and I find it disappointing that Arb-com has used the term and that a delineation is needed. Had arb-com simply said that wheel warring is a form of dispute and dispute resolution is blah, then this whole page would not really be needed, we could add the term to the glossary and redirect to dispute resolution.

• To me, once instances are identified, then admin's need to work out a course of action. I'd suggest blocks can be considered, and I also think that if an admin unblocks themselves, and a consensus was built on the admin's noticeboard for a block, that's got to be considered abuse of power and maybe it needs to be taken to arb-com. Those are things to be thought about. I think instances need to be determined at the admin's noticeboard though, not by a step by step walk through examples listed here. I don't think we need to point out that behaviour needs to be considered, I think that is fairly well documented anyway. So those are my thoughts, and John, since you invited me here, I can't help but feel a little ungracious in offering this opinion, but I tend to support the newer version of the page, largely because I think it offers the same stance as what you are asking for. Steve block Talk 11:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I see the point of the 'bright line' and 'balancing test' concepts now, but do think it is better to explain them directly rather than introduce 'new jargon'. On the 'bright line' wording, "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it."... That to me says that you can take an admin action you know is opposed once, just not a second time. So, if a bunch of admins are discussing a possible block on AN/I and there is strong disagreement about it, someone could go and place the block anyway... and then someone else could remove it... and neither of them wheel warred? If someone who didn't know about the hypothetical AN/I discussion placed a block I would be fine with that... they did what they thought correct without knowledge that it was disputed. But an admin knowingly thumbing their nose at disagreement from other admins and taking action before a consensus can be established seems to me the root problem and not to be 'officially allowed' even once. I'd go with something like, 'Do not take an admin action when you know that another administrator opposes it unless a consensus decision has been reached.' Even the 'unblock' and 'undelete' examples Radiant mentioned could fall into such a formulation. Even removing a block which seems improper can be done in the belief that the admin who placed it will acknowledge their mistake or at least that policy / the rest of the admin community would agree. I think this illustrates that John is right about "nuances" of wording having a big impact here, but I think that can be addressed with very specific wording and examples. --CBD 12:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Straight off, I have to get a fast answer to complaints about "jargon". I really thought that after I'd posted pictures, there wouldn't be any lack of clarity about the distinction between "bright-line rule" and "balancing test". Both concepts have regular articles; now each has its own image on this page; before that, at the time of merge, I put together a special-purpose diagram that still sits up top there. I regret using the terms first degree and second degree; I've seen them in other contexts and am entirely comfortable with arbitrary labels. I seriously regret using section headers named Policy and Guideline; doing so confuses the issues of acceptance and consensus on one hand with severity or method of determination on the other. I move to drop all application of the latter two pairs of terms, period.

If "bright-line rule" and "balancing test" are insufficiently clear, I want a different pair of labels now. I don't want to ride forth into discussion on a pair of lame ducks. My main objection to this pair of terms is that, together, they consist of five words, so they take some time to type. Choose your poison, please; I will go with the first suggestion and use it consistently from there on out. I ask the very next comment begin with a declaration of the preferred pair of terms and any following objection to speak to that minor technical point first. Nothing is more antagonizing than wading through a discussion in which people cannot even agree on what to call the subjects. I will accept, at least here in this discussion, any pair of terms: "foo" and "bar", if you like. Be sure to specify which is which, please. Avoid ambiguous and confusing terms such as "old" and "new". Thank you.

I'd like to make all sorts of rejoinders to comments above and I'm willing but I'd like to ask Steve and CBD's indulgence and simply narrow the discussion for the moment. I promise to return to all other points in good time but for efficiency, let's concentrate on one at a time.

A. I say each of two pages that I merged into this [19] version independently achieved guideline status. I support this not merely by claiming that each page bore the {{guideline}} tag; that is also true but less important than underlying community consensus. I say this consensus is demonstrated by the very heavy participation shown in the record on both pages and on corresponding talk; by a straw poll taken among "seven forks"; and also, by the relative stability of each page for lengths of time while bearing the guideline tag. Further, acceptance is shown independently by the heavy frequency of citation by other editors in a wide range of forums up to and including RfArb final decisions.

B. Therefore, I say that it is not appropriate to make major changes to this merged version without prior discussion.

C. I anticipate the quibble that the merge itself is a major change. I say the merge preserved intact salient features of each pre-merge version without introducing significant novelties. I also note that while I did perform the merge, I did not instigate it; motion to merge came from other quarters. This is also shown in the record.

1. Therefore, proposed that this page be restored to [20], the appropriate {{guideline}} tag be restored, and further changes be discussed.

2. Alternately, for those who quibble with the merge, proposed that the current state of this page be moved to Wikipedia:Wheel war/Draft2 and each individual page be restored to the state it had prior to merge: [21] and [22]. Discussion may then proceed at a central talk page on the merits of all four versions.

Please indicate (after expressing your preference for terms) either your endorsement or your opposition to either proposal. If you oppose, please rebut the points I have made in support. Thank you. John Reid ° 18:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Side trip

♦ copied from User talk:John Reid:

Please check your facts. The guideline tag was removed by Vectro here; later, in reponse to a comment on the village pump that this should be policy, I found it tagless and, rather than marking it policy immediately, added a proposed tag [23] to get agreement upon the wording. Radiant! 11:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)    ♦

-1. If you want to call me a dick, feel free to do so on my user talk page. If you want to speak to the substantive issue, why not do so here?

0. See where I asked you, or anyone else with an interest, to first tell me how you would like to rename "bright-line rule" and "balancing test" so as to remove any legalistic jargon taint? That stands.

1. I object to your snarky comment overall. "Please check your facts" is insulting; it implies, without speaking to any point, that my facts are wrong. You go ahead and spell out exactly what I've claimed that is untrue -- or retract your comment, please.

2. You did not tag this "proposed" to get agreement on anything; you tagged it in order to spray some sort of spurious air freshener on your bulldozer. If you start waving around claims of intent, I'll do the same. You've consistently ignored and scoffed at every attempt to discuss substantive issues. And now run another thread into the ground. John Reid ° 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you insist - the message you sent to ten different user talk pages contains the text "I tagged the merge as guideline ... Our friend first tagged it down to proposed" which is demonstrably false since I did not "tag it down" from guideline to prosposed, but I "tagged it up" from untagged to proposed.
• Other than that, I object to the legalistic dichotomy, not the specific terms used. As such, I do not believe renaming them is going to help.
• Finally, it would really help if you remained civil, refrained from making veiled personal attacks and snide accusations here, and assumed good faith on people's intent. (Radiant) 10:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You tagged it down and you know it. You have no illusions on this point and neither do I. You know how the history button works as well as I do; you read edit sums better than most people, I imagine. You see, clearly, that the editor who rm the guideline tag did so not to thrust the page off into a limbo from which you rescued it but, at least in his own mind, to promote the section titled Policy to policy. Now I thought that was kinda wacky but I'm not really into tag warring and I thought I'd invite the community to work on it. You know all of this, barring possibly my own intent; the other editor made his abundantly clear. I assume better faith on your part in saying you knew you were tagging down preliminary to wholesale editing rather than you were simply ignorant and failed to check history.

Object to the legalistic dichotomy all you like. You're free to do so. But I have asked, in civil fashion, that before you say anything else at all, you simply state the words in which you wish to discuss that dichotomy. I am not going to stand here waving away clouds of sand blown at the terms used. Either accept the terms bright-line rule and balancing test or propose another pair. You do not get to carp at something without expressing a preference for something else. Questions about temporary terminology for use during a debate on a substantive issue have priority.

There are no "veiled" accusations here. I straightforwardly say you are destroying this page in contravention of expressed community consensus -- not a perfect consensus but one stated clearly and loudly before you started in. I say you have ignored my every effort to talk about this, instead cutting more and more. You have been rude -- discourteous to another editor who has asked in increasingly firm tones that you discuss what you are doing instead of merely assuming that you know better than everyone who worked on this page before you did. You abandoned any claim to good faith the first time you blithely blew me off and continued to raze in the name of "improvement". I still have nothing to say about who you are -- only about what you are doing. Tug as you may, you cannot stretch your protection from John calling you a dick all the way over to protect your actions from John calling them destructive.

You may be right and I may be wrong and every time you touch the keyboard an angel may get his wings but I've asked you again and again to stop what you are doing and discuss it. Policy after policy -- including this one! -- advises us to discuss rather than war over edits. Would you feel I was being more polite if I threw honeyed words at you and reverted? I've not touched the page since you started in. I've asked you to discuss, here on talk, particular points. You drop in for a few broad accusations of personal attack and hop right back on the tractor. Please talk. I can't possibly ask you any more directly without being rude. If you think you have a better idea then accept either one of my rational proposals, draft your improvements, and put them up for comment. If you do have a better idea then our community will acclaim you for a savior and curse me for a fool. Until that time, I ask you to assume good faith, act as though you are in the middle of a dispute between educated gentlemen, and respond directly to the points I make. I swear I will respond to yours. John Reid ° 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

1. You tagged it down and you know it. - false, I intended it to become policy after the wording was agreed upon, as indicated in my comment near the top of this talk page.
2. You have no illusions on this point and neither do I - please don't put words in my mouth.
3. You see, clearly, that the editor who rm the guideline tag did so not to thrust the page off into a limbo from which you rescued it but, - that editor said the page is both guideline and policy, which is contradictory. This confusion seems to stem from the (older) wording of the page, which I have been attempting to clean up.
4. I assume better faith on your part in saying you knew you were tagging down preliminary to wholesale editing rather than you were simply ignorant and failed to check history. - Hanlon's razor comes to mind; also, I have clearly indicated on this talk page that I intended this page to be policy.
5. But I have asked, in civil fashion, that before you say anything else at all, you simply state the words in which you wish to discuss that dichotomy. - I have no objection to discussing the dichotomy in the words you give. But that is really a red herring since my objection is to the dichotomy itself, not the wording thereof.
6. There are no "veiled" accusations here. I straightforwardly say you are destroying this page - okay, then you are straightforwardly being incivil. Kindly cut that out.
7. in contravention of expressed community consensus - so far, several people have agreed with my version of the page and none have agreed with yours. This appears to imply that consensual preference lies closer to my wording.
8. -- not a perfect consensus but one stated clearly and loudly before you started in. - I started in on January 16th. That's probably not what you meant though. But where exactly was this consensus stated loudly and clearly?
9. I say you have ignored my every effort to talk about this, instead cutting more and more. - false, my posts on this talk page are obvious, and several are in response to you.
10. You have been rude -- discourteous to another editor - pot, meet kettle.
11. instead of merely assuming that you know better than everyone who worked on this page before you did. - false, I have asked feedback from the beginning, and have been discussing this, e.g. with Toptomcat above.
12. You abandoned any claim to good faith the first time you blithely blew me off and continued to raze in the name of "improvement". - as has been pointed out before, making policy clearer, more concise and less legalistic is generally considered an improvement on Wikipedia, as witnessed by the several projects at the moment to rewrite policy (most of which, incidentally, I am uninvolved in). I have not blown you off, I have explained several times to you that Wikipedia policies are not written like books of law.
13. Tug as you may, you cannot stretch your protection from John calling you a dick all the way over to protect your actions from John calling them destructive. - I have been called worse, but this sure reads like an appeal to emotion.
14. Would you feel I was being more polite if I threw honeyed words at you and reverted? - no, I would feel you were more polite if you didn't use such phrasings as "if you're here just to fling crap, why?", "the next time you offer a pastiche on other people's words, please do so with a shade more objectivity", "you are doing your best to make this a personal issue" and so forth.
15. If you think you have a better idea then accept either one of my rational proposals, draft your improvements, and put them up for comment. - I have drafted up improvements, as shown in the current revision of the page. They are up for comment, and several people have expressed approval so far.
16. Until that time, I ask you to assume good faith, act as though you are in the middle of a dispute between educated gentlemen, and respond directly to the points I make. - Hereby done. (Radiant) 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to talk

I still want to hear, first, what my fellow editors want as an alternate pair of terms for bright-line rule and balancing test. Then, I would like to hear criticism of the points and proposals I have made. Thank you. John Reid ° 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, my thoughts. I think John has a point that this could be restored and workshopped, if that creates a better guideline or policy then all the better. As to the replacing of the two terms, I'm just going to undercut the whole issue John. I really don't see the need for any such terms at all. I wouldn't write it the way you would, so I wouldn't just replace those two terms in your text, I'd rewrite the whole thing as has already been done. That probably doesn't help, but that's my opinion. Steve block Talk 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, Steve. Now, will you please tell me what you want me to call these two things so we can discuss them like gentlemen. Thank you. John Reid ° 22:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I concur with Steve that those two terms are completely orthogonal to the discussion at hand, and thus think that we don't really need to discuss what other things we might call them. Nandesuka 04:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Try an objective judgment and not an objective judgment. Honestly, it's not that hard. Simply looking at the Bright-line rule page gives several other synonymous phrases such as "clear-cut", "self-evident", etc. Even if we need to explicitly include those two concepts at all, they are far more clearly explained by simply giving an abbreviated form of their definitions. --tjstrf talk 01:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final response to John Reid

Due to John's inability to meaningfully and civilly discuss issues with anyone else, in addition to his bizarre and verbose attempts to force everyone to only discuss John's personal objections within his personal framework, as well as the general futility of further engaging with this personality, I feel it's necessary to say the following:

John Reid, your objections have been noted. That is all. Philwelch 05:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Any time you're ready to discuss substantive issues directly, you're welcome to come back. Thanks for coming in. John Reid ° 08:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts

Sorry for the rushed comments and new section, but here are some thoughts: my general feeling is that it would be best to decide on something (fairly lax), and then let people follow their own (stricter) guidelines if they want. A bit like the 3RR versus 1RR thing. It should be common sense really. Be civil and discuss things, rather than edit warring, even if the actions happen to be admin actions. Oh, and investigate before taking admin actions, and thus prevent slow wheel wars. Any deciding on a guideline is better than another few years with nothing. Carcharoth 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinon, Carcharoth. Now will you please respect my simple wish that you tell me what language you wish me to use when discussing these issues. Then, I'd like you kindly to respond to the specific points I've made. I don't think it's too much to ask. This is, I hope, rational discusion. John Reid ° 22:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the language you are using, but this is like a lame style edit war. The language used really doesn't matter, as long as it says the same thing. I can't really respond to the other stuff until I've had time to read all this in more detail. I've never really looked at these pages much before this week. Carcharoth 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shorter and Clearer is Better

Looking through the recent contributions, I prefer Radiant's crisper, more clear edits to John's somewhat wandering version. Radiant's version is more readable and easier to understand. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 20:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, too, Nandesuka. Now, may I ask you very nicely to select from the universe of language two words or phrases that, for you, best encapsulate the meanings I have so very badly expressed with the legalistic jargon bright-line rule and balancing test. I promise to use consistently the first set of terms proposed.

Then, while I respect your opinion on the relative merits of recent edits to the previous version, may I ask that you read over my specific recent points -- which are not at all about merit but only about community consensus. I would make the same exact points if I thought recent edits had improved the world out of this page. I want, for now, to address the issue of prior guideline status. I'm asking, as one rational person to another, that we discuss this rationally instead of running around in circles around and away from it. Thank you. John Reid ° 22:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you keep obstructing all substantive discussion with this bizarre demand, I'll go ahead and make a suggestion: since by "bright-line rule" and "balancing test" you seem to mean the same things that we generally mean by "policy" and "guideline" (and since your explication of these terms serves well as an expression of the distinction between Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia guidelines), I suggest you use these standard terms. As Radiant suspected above, that does seem to imply that your "policy defines a bright-line rule, guidelines invite a balancing test" logically reduces to "policy is policy and guidelines are guidelines", which, as Radiant further notes, is a semantic null and should best be removed for the sake of brevity and clarity. Philwelch 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your request is too obtuse for me to understand. Can you rephrase it in a simpler and less elliptical way? Thanks. Nandesuka 04:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, while I'm just a bear of little brain and don't necessarily understand all the subtleties, it seems to me that the strong opposition expressed by many parties to your edits belies your claim that you are simply expressing community consensus. That seems to me to be a much more fundamental and interesting issue than quibbling over, as you say, jargon. Nandesuka 04:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

John, I find the intent of your merged version better than either of the pages it was created from or the form currently on the page. It properly expressed concepts about how even an 'initial action' can be wheel warring while a reversion might not. My main concern was with the 'jargon' of 'bright line', 'balancing test', 'first degree', et cetera. You ask over and over for different terms, but that misses the point of the objections raised... get rid of the terms and keep only the explanations of what they mean. When you create a term, say 'wheel warring', it inevitably gets used slightly differently than intended and takes on different connotations to different people. This produces confusion and disagreement which might have been avoided by explaining what is intended directly without attempting to define all its subtleties with a simple 'name'. Beyond that I'd only question the validity of the 'bright line' concept. For example, I recently removed protection from a page on the belief that a compromise discussed on the talk had resolved the issue by splitting the article... instead the split off article was then put up for deletion and the edit war continued. Under 'bright line' as you defined it the original admin would be edit warring if they restored protection, but they should not be... the situation had changed and they made the right action with no reason to think I would disagree (which, I did not). Thus, I think it would be better to toss the various degrees and tests and say only something like, 'Taking an admin action, which a reasonable person would expect to be disputed by other admins, without first establishing a consensus may lead to sanctions.' --CBD 13:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)