GuildWiki talk:Only revert once

This is definitely the tradition now; I think it's maybe okay for a regular user.. but not an admin. Every time I check the list of edits and see something like:
 * 12:01: (some admin) rolled back Article:Sticking People With Sword
 * 12:00: (user, maybe anonymouse) edited Article:Sticking People With Sword

..with no intervening Talk:, it gets my hackles up. A lot of the time, there isn't even a Talk: afterwards! That's just flat-out rude. If we assume the edit was made in good faith in the first place, it especially behooves an admin (who, special powers or not, is the only obvious rank we have in this society) to take the time to say, "Hey, I'm not sure this edit is okay?" And wait at least a few hours to see if anyone responds about it. THEN revert it. This has been bugging me for awhile. --Nunix 04:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would absolutely love it if this guideline changed; I was only trying to document the current state of things.


 * Oi! Policymongers!  Come discuss this!


 * More seriously, I think it's good for "regular users" because they use update comments. With our rollback feature, there is no update comment, so there's no documentation on why an edit was reverted.  I think the ideal change for the GuildWiki is just making us admins revert non-vandal edits with the edit button and a meaningful comment. &mdash;Tanaric 16:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this tradition is quite bad to have now. "Quite bad" as in: a while ago, I found myself unable to justify continuing to contribute to the main namespace until this changed.  Does anyone know the specific examples that prompted adopting this tradition in the first place (I'm assuming it didn't appear in a vaccuum)? --Rezyk 22:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Well, fairly certain. But it wouldn't really be productive at this point to say, "This person started doing it, so everyone else did also." As long as it's seen as a bad thing that needs to change, I'm content with that. --Nunix 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Well, there's the revert and then there's the explanation of the revert. We need to be clear about which one we are talking about. If the issue is the powers of an admin to revert a bad/lousy edit. I think this power is in the hand of every user. We should give guidelines as to when a revert shoud be used and explain that it should really be used scarcely. I must add that since the beginning of this wiki, every admin I am aware of has been reverting extremely trivial edits without much debate. The most offered is a quick explanation in the comments line.


 * If the issue is that Admin X reverted and did not explain his revert. Well, there are a few points to note:
 * a) As Tanaric said, we could require that everyone explain at least in the comments line why they made a revert. We can even define a rule that any unexplained revert (by anyone) will be reverted within 15 minutes. I personally believe that is overkill, such as in this case.
 * b) I believe there is a certain amount of trust that's supposed to be given to Admins. The kind of trust that Rezyk did not believe existed in the wiki during our famous Hex clash. Just like if a Police Officer attempts to arrest a citizen, a citizen must go along, EVEN if he know he is innocent and the officer is wrong. Resisting an arrest is an offense itself. Likewise, when an admin reverts, I believe it's different than when a user reverts. And I think a user should not revert an admin's revert unless the issue has been discussed in the talk page or the admin offered no explanation. Even if the user believes the admin is dead wrong or even if he hates the admin's guts. It's part of having a process.
 * c) I also believe there are consequences to this trust. If an admin reverts and explains why he made his revert and the user keeps reverting simply because he is mad or is on a pride trip, then I think that user should be banned for a week or so. And yes, I am clearly referring to the exaple of Rezyk's conflict with me. If an admin states why he made the revert, and his complaint is legitimate, then the User butting heads with the admin should be banned for a short while to cool off. If the admin does not explain then he deserves getting childish treatment. But if the Admin explains, I think the User acting childishly and trying to impose his version on admin is not something to be taken lightly. This is something I have run into twice now, once with Rezyk and once with that user who was mad about "The Frog" vs "the Frog."
 * d) This trust comes with a responsibility. If an admin makes an unexplained revert or a revert with poor rationale, this revert will always show up in the history of the articles and other users and admins can check the revert and seek removal of that admin if he is abusing his powers. Making a proper, but unexplained, revert is obviously not grounds for removal, but making several reverts against the reversion policy is certainly grounds for removal.
 * Limiting the powers of an admin to revert below those of a regular user is illogical and ignoring the fact that a person is made admin primarily because of their contributions/didication to the wiki is unwise. --Karlos 03:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One of these days, Karlos, we're going to get you to participate in a discussion without adding a screen of text. =p And please refrain from citing names. Going forward is better for all involved, as opposed to mucking about in what has passed.
 * Since the discussion is how to handle reverts, and not edit wars: Tanaric's suggestion that admins only use rollback for vandalism suits me fairly well. And since the cry around here is often, "Admin are just regular users," let's not muck about with additional "powers", as it were: no one reverts without explaining it in the comment. If the comment field is not enough, it must go to Talk:. If a user adds something, and it's reverted, they should never have to go and ask why. Information should already be there. --Nunix 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this just your opinion or are you telling the rest of us how it's going to be. Here is what I am seeing: I am proposing these points (and I am okay with you stating your disagreement), but what I read in your response is you deciding we will not discuss (muck about with) my proposals and that admins will not revert without explaining in the comments. Am I mis-reading your response or is the discussion over?
 * With regards to an admin = user, that is true, an admin's opinion equals a user's opinion. If the admin reverts article X because he thinks the last edit was not objective, and three users post they disagree with him, then he loses. Simple. A clear majority against his edit. This does not mean that an admin's edits are treated the same as an anonymous user's edits. At least I would like to think so.
 * I use names to give clear examples. I don't beat around the bush. I don't understand how you can sit there and say nothing when Tetris writes his assault on my person (and in fact go cheerleading on his talk page) then tell me now to "not name names" for the greater good. With all due respect, I find that incredibly hypocritical. As such, suggestion is rejected. --Karlos 05:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Karlos: I agree with Nunix that the discussion about additional admin powers/authority/respect belongs somewhere else, as it is not directly related to this discussion. I would love to discuss it, though. :)


 * Since everyone seems to agree on at least "Only rollback vandalism", I'll wait a few days for disagreements and then add another traditions article with that title. &mdash;Tanaric 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Karlos, I disagree completely with your rollback of Sapphire. I've edited it myself to reflect that. &mdash;Tanaric 14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I find myself ... deeply disturbed by this. I'd like it to be absolutely clear that, in complete contrast to various stuff above, I have never been in a revert war with an admin.  The Hex clash was between 2 non-admins, one of whom was later promoted to admin.  If anyone still has the slightest doubt about this, do not hesitate to speak up.  Otherwise, let's just please move on. --Rezyk 16:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think Karlos intended to tarnish your reputation. Nothin' but love, Rezyk. :) &mdash;Tanaric 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, this was actually quite informative. I've been around long enough and yet sporadically enough to know about some of this stuff, but my initial reading of Karlos's description led me to believe exactly what Rezyk clarified.  I'm not trying to disparage anyone, but I found the wording misled me.
 * Also, since I'm not sure if the discussion has happened somewhere else (this is what happens when I don't have time to read Recent Changes thoroughly every day!), I'm quite in favor of the default that presumes Admins should act like Normal Users unless there's been specific reasons to act otherwise. Additionally, it would be wise for admins to note when they have their Admin Hats on, versus their Regular User Hats on (and I've seen some admins doing this), whenever it might be ambiguous.  I do not presume admins should necessarily be given more respect than any other named user (I'll make exceptions for first-time anonymous posters), especially in general.  Presumably admins are more trusted by the people who made them admins.  However, I certainly couldn't name all the admins on GuildWiki.  When I interact with just about anyone, I treat them as I would treat any other user, because I don't know otherwise.  This is not a legal system, and I think it's unreasonable to assume that users know which other users are Admins (unless we start making it stand out everywhere an admins name is, or something, akin to Purple Text).  If this conversation has happened elsewhere, I'd be happy to know where it led.  =)  --JoDiamonds 05:50, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Name change
I disagree with the proposed name change to "GuildWiki:Do not revert another revert". It doesn't need a longer name and I suspect that the propsed move is a reaction to the current revert war. I don't think that changing the policy name would have stopped this argument or help prevent future ones. --Xasxas256 21:39, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It's a reaction to a standing observation that some ppl seem to think the "Only revert once" means it's ok to revert it the 3rd time to the version of the first reversion. It is sparked by the most recent revert war, but it's been bugging me for months.  It probably wouldn't have prevented this one, but that's not the direct intention anyways. - 21:41, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I also disagree with the name change, the current title is accurate and doesn't need to be changed to one that's longer. The suggestion confusion is because Wikipedia uses a 3rd revert rule, so wikipedians come over thinking that applies here as well.  Once they are reminded we are not wikipedia and see the guildwiki policy, they recognize thie variance.  If more emphasis is viewed as needed, then I think it's better to add the proposed new title as a corollary within the text of the policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:45, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * A note needs to be added to state clearly that an explained revert of your work warrants a request for administrator assistance. This goes without saying. 1RV right now is being abused like a childish "he touched me, he touched me first." I revert your good work and then I pull a 1RV on you and let the article languish in an inferior state because I am too stubborn. An RV without explanation is NOT subject to the 1RV rule in my opinion. See the long thread above about how people felt when I did it. And I agree totally with that thread even though I was the culprit. --Karlos 22:10, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I largely agree with Pansola and would really like the title changed, as it is simply unclear (and always has been). I believe the rule should be to never, ever do a double revert until there is discussion and consensus is reached between the involved parties.  Anyone tempted to followup a revert with another revert should stop themselves and discuss instead.  There's already a problem once someone feels the need to do that.  Even if it's someone else's problem, the solution is to talk about it, not to start a war.  There's no excuses here for typical reverts.  (This presumes some common sense, and obviously doesn't touch page wipes or vandalism.)  --JoDiamonds 23:05, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I do not agree with the name change. It is fine as it is. If you want to change it I suggest just "Do not Re-Revert", whatever you do, keep it simple. --Draygo Korvan 23:10, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd much prefer Do not Re-Revert to the current title Only revert once; I'm not in favor of a really long name per se. I merely think the current title doesn't explain the goal.  The page does explain, but the title is vague.  --JoDiamonds 23:24, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I do prefer Do not Re-Revert over the originally proposed Do not revert another revert. They mean the same, but I prefer the shorter version.  Although I'm indifferent between the title Do not Re-Revert and the current title. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:27, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Changed the move tag to "Do not re-revert". - 00:29, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Suggested additions to the 1RV policy
After issues with this policy that were brought out in Talk:Game updates/20060615, some proposed additional wording for this policy has been made. To reduce confusion and eliminate perceived loop-holes, adding these in should help going forward: I think this should address the perceived shortcomings. If I have time, I'll type up a full policy draft later today (I'm leaving for a camping trip this afternoon, so feel free to draft one yourself if you agree with a change being needed, as I may run out of time to do one myself before leaving). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:24, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) All reverts must at least have an explaination in the edit summary. Unexplained reverts will not be counted towards the only revert once limitation.
 * 2) If you disagree with a revert, and attempts at discussion have resulted in no replies or in only the two parties replying, then an admin can be notified on their talk page asking for their attention in the matter.

I propose scrapping this policy
The only workable policy for a site this size is, in my opinion, "Only revert vandalism". It will have the following exceptions: The first exception gives it an escape valve, and the second gives it teeth.
 * 1) Sysops may revert anything
 * 2) Any user found violating this rule will be statutorily blocked from editing with the block periods increasing with each subsequent violation

In case of an editorial dispute, the only avenue open to normal users should be to take it to the talk page. If no consensus is possible, it should be brought before a sysop. A normal user may not revert the work of another normal user, even on matters of factual inaccuracy.

As regards the recent revert war, I find Stabber 100% in the wrong. He was being disruptive to illustrate a point, which is several times worse than a disagreement over content. I know he will not be banned, nor even suffer any consequences, but if he does ever return to the wiki I will simply revert all of his edits summarily and dare him to re-revert.

Karlos' actions in this event are irrelevant because he is a sysop and therefore is not, and should not be, subject to normal policies. The policy that sysops are bount to is GW:DID, and that's basically it. Editorial opinions of normal users do not, and should not, hold as much sway as those of sysops. Authoritarianism is the only policy that can work for a site this tiny.

If two sysops get into an edit war, then the wiki is doomed. Therefore, it is meaningless to plan for that eventuality. 70.17.169.122 12:40, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Sysops are also bound to GW:YOU. --Draygo Korvan 12:55, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the intention of "one revert" is to allow the freedom to revert mistakes considered trivial. If anyone disagrees with the revert, then we have a real dispute.  That's what I believe the original intention behind the policy is, and may or may not represent my personal opinion on this matter. - 13:10, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * i've watched this develop, and i think there is a lot of smoke for such a small fire. i like stabber, SHE has been quite helpful on many articles. i like karlos, he's been a fair and judicious admin.
 * in this instance, both of them ignored GuildWiki:Assume good faith, but i can understand the circumstances. it was in the heat of an update, both of them saw their work disappear and started defending, rather then making an attempt at understanding. none of this means the policy is flawed or should be scrapped.
 * with an idealist project like this, people who (for whatever reasons, valid or not) ignore the ideals are already operating outside the policy. all that can be done is to foster trust in the ideals and exclude those who blatantly ignore them. neither stabber nor karlos blatantly ignored the ideals, neither should be punished/banned/flamed in these talk pages. I'm sure they both understand where their mistake was, and will make every attempt to not do that in the future, because the believe in the ideals, otherwise they wouldn't have donated all their time and effort for so long.
 * GW:AGF means there are going to be problems, because the wiki "fails open", that is, it allows first and prevents for cause. part of that is subjecting the EVERYONE to EVERY rule, and enforcing those rules with a forgiving hand. if your not comfortable with correcting those wrinkles, either intentional vandals or honest misunderstandings like this, then you should go elsewhere. i hear IGN.com has a good database, dreadfully out of date thou. --Honorable Sarah 14:26, 16 June 2006 (CDT)