Talk:Game updates/20060615/fighting

Huh? What gives, Stabber? --Karlos 20:45, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Another issue with being verbatim with the official website, I presume. - 20:47, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Indeed. And you have broken 1RV. But you are an admin, Karlos, so you knew that. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:47, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You never explained your RV. And your reasoning now makes no sense. I thought we already had that debate in the last update. --Karlos 20:51, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

My personal policy on revert wars

 * 1) Do not re-revert.
 * 2) Do not re-re-revert, even if you explain your rational in the edit summary.
 * 3) Do not re-re-re-revert, even if you just explained your rational on the talk page a minute ago.
 * 4) Do not re-re-re-re-revert to the version that was the first reversion.
 * 5) Do not re-re-re-re-re-revert to the version that you know is right, just because you have stated your position on the matter on the talk page, unless the discussion on the talk page has been concluded one way or the other (consensus, overwhelming support of one side of the issue by the community, the other person drops the issue due to burnout, etc).

Having that said, I'm going to unprotect the article now. It's meaningless for one of the only two participants of a revert war to request bans and protection on the page. It is just as meaningless for the other participant to actually protect the article (at worse it escalates the revert war to the admin level). - 21:11, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * True, however, as an admin, I cannot let a user have his/her way with the system. An unexplained revert of the contribution on another user (who has a solid track-record) is not allowed in my book. and should not be allowed in this wiki altogether. Whenever I see an unexplained RV of someone else's work, I always review it. If I saw the reverted edit was plausible even, I will revert the RV.
 * In Stabber's case it was doubly annoying because she did not explain her RV, yet she had the time to get on my talk page and tell me I was in violation of Rule 6, section 3 paragraph (b). I think that was ridiculous.
 * Reverting an admin to protect an explained RV is even worse in my book. --Karlos 21:20, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, after your re-revert, and after stabber's re-re-revert, both of you have started talking on the talk page. Even if Stabber's explaination doesn't make sense or is extremely weak to you, at least you should not have done the re-re-re-revert.  And thus protection would not have been necessary.  What if you are having this disagreement with another admin, who feel strongly about his/her reason to revert as much as your reason for re-revert?  I see protection/ban as only necessary when one side of the revert war cannot be reached for comments/discussion.  If a discussion is taking place, even if the current version makes absolutely no sense to you, I plead to just leave it alone (or add a tag at the top of the page saying the content of the page is being debated etc). - 21:28, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Like I said, the way the reverts were done, necessitated (to me) that it not be left to stand. Protecting the page was necessary, once there is a user on a rampage, page protection comes next. --Karlos 21:34, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * GW:1RV says, if you find your stuff reverted, take it up on the talk page. It specifically says to not re-revert, even in the case where someone else wrongfully re-reverted.  --68.142.14.34 21:36, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * With all due respect, RV1 only takes place (in my mind) IF the reverting contributor bothered to explain his/her revert. An unexplained RV of someone else's work (especially a registered regular user) is -in and of itself- worthy of an automatic RV. We already established that a long time ago. --Karlos 21:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Revert3 was explained, and Revert5 inherits the explaination. So just becasuse Revert1 is worthy of an automatic RV and Revert3 is identical to Revert1 doesn't mean you can automatically revert Revert3 and 5. - 21:46, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * My opinion, as I was trying to add useful information the entire time to both the talk page and the article (one getting edit conflicts, the other protected)...you both, Stabber and Karlos, are at fault of violating policy. Needless to say, you already know that. And in all the time I have been at this Wiki, I have never seen protection been used in such a way. And that last part Karlos commented on reverts, stating "especially a registered regular user", seems to suggest RV1 takes precedance over GW:YOU. That's all I will say, being a bystander and all. --Gares Redstorm 21:49, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Your indentation implies you are replying to my comment. Added to teh fact that stabber hasn't showed up in this discussion yet, the literal interpretation is that you are saying both PanSola and Karlos are at fault. - 21:55, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * A first revert takes the article back to its unchanged state; that's a safer point from which to start discussion. Assuming good faith of the initial person to do the revert should kick in at that point.  The only times I can see to bypass this would be if there's source material to show the revert changed an article back to an inacurrate state, or if the revert restores vandalized content (note: formatting is not content in this context of the contributions - hmmm, ran out of 'cont...' words). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:53, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think we should get assume good faith involved, because that implies RV2 is not assumed good faith, and that is simply untrue. Revert wars happen between ppl unwilling to stand down but with good intentions. - 21:58, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I only brought it up because of Karlos' comment "An unexplained RV of someone else's work (especially a registered regular user) is -in and of itself- worthy of an automatic RV", which ignores assume good faith in the justification for making rv2. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:02, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Barek, Assume Good Faith and You are valuable for the one reverting but not the original contributor? A revert is an edit like any edit. Taking out information is AS BAD as putting in wrong information. There is no known "safe-state" for an article. The article is in a safe-state perhaps prior to an anonymous edit stating unverified information. But Use A edits Article X to change the FORMATTING, Usr B reverts because he/she does not like it. How is that taking the article to a "safe state"?
 * Consider me an old stubborn fool, but an unexplained RV gets no good faith because it destroys "You are valuable."
 * PanSola, when Stabber did RV3, she was already aware that her RV is questioned and being debated. That's like me knowing that there is a debate about whether Onis are Demons and going to change all the Oni articles to say they are demons and then RVing anyone who tries to stop me. Basically, she had knowledge that he RV is unwarranted at this point without first going through the talk pages. She was using RV1 as the pretext for why her version should stay, but her version was an invalid RV unexplained and questioned. --Karlos 22:04, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Karlos, you are correct that an unexplained RV also ignores YAV and AGF. However, at that point it should be taken to talk.  The first revert takes an article to its unmodified state, which is as much of a "safe-state" as is going to be found.  In this case, the RV1 policy only impacts formatting; but it also applies to added or removed text.  A first revert restores the unchanged content, which gives a starting point to decide what should and should not be added or removed.
 * Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that we should clean-up the formatting of text copied from guildwars.com, as long as the text remains unchanged and retians its original context, spelling, and meaning. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:16, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Pan, you know what I mean. :P I was referring to Stabber and Karlos. Stabber has done what I would have done being in this situation...taken a step back. --Gares Redstorm 22:07, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Gares, 1RV is already ahead of "You are valuable" if anyone can rv any edit then pull 1RV on your work and say, sorry, you can't touch this. 1RV needs to be subject to YOU. The comment about registered rgular users is common sense. We all check any article edited by an anonymous user because we don't know who is doing what. I am not saying an unexplained RV of an anonymous user's good work is any more acceptable. --Karlos 22:20, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Though I am not trying to advocate any particular action, I personally find both Karlos and Stabber guilty of pointless, childish behavior that is destructive to the good of the wiki, regardless of any rules we have in place or the minutia of their priorities over one another. The spirit of wiki collaboration was certainly violated by both parties. By the second or third revert (let alone more!), both parties should be stopping and discussing and not changing the article any more. Recognize that you have a bias by that point and cannot be partial any longer. Take yourself out of the revert war. Be an adult.

It is no more correct revert someone's uncommented revert as it is to do the uncommented revert in the first place. Both parties should have asked what was going on instead of starting a war. Until both parties agree about a course of action, they should recuse themselves from changing that page.

Frankly, I'd expect one of the qualities of someone who is an admin to be more adult like behavior, willing to step aside instead of fighting. This is not a case where someone can get away with saying they were merely wearing different hats. Alert another admin (either party!) and ask for outside guidance. Page locks should never be necessary for this kind of thing, because at least one party should be willing to discuss and wait for other opinions while leaving the page alone. The fact that it kept going shows that at least two stubborn parties were involved (which I doubt either party would deny).

I don't feel there's possibly more useful stuff for me to say, given the now admin nature of this problem. I think the active admins need to figure out what should have gone on here (with respect to admin powers involved). When it was merely a revert war, at least most of the humans on this wiki could meaningfully comment. It's at a higher level than mere mortals like myself now. --JoDiamonds 23:00, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ok ignoring all above and what's happening, JoDiamonds mate, I've gotta say that calling people childish, using the catchy tag and the phrase "be an adult" are not helpful. Keep your comments constructive and non personal. You should address the issue at hand, and not berate the parties involved. That kind of language is not helpful in any discussion, even if we're many people are thinking it. Everyone knows that the system broke down here so look at solution and what happened. --Xasxas256 23:17, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * My apologies if my own language was inappropriate. But I felt some people really were skirting the issue and trying to make claims that what was done was somehow in the right, or quibbling over very minor issues or interpretations of Guild Wiki legalese.  Maybe everyone knows the system broke down, but it didn't seem like anyone was actually saying that.  --JoDiamonds 23:32, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Well thanks for taking the critisism well. I feel as though if the system works then this wouldn't happen, because it happened the system musten be working. By "the system" I mean if GW:1RV worked properly and left no room for interpretation then it would have been a simple case. But here we're discussion what about if a user is an admin, a long time user, the edit summary wasn't filled in, good faith etc. If the rule was crystal clear then there shouldn't be any interpretation and those questions would have already been addressed. This discussion highlights that the 1RV needs some work I guess. --Xasxas256 23:51, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

I've skipped reading that.. what I think is that ban notices should not have been slapped around, it's rediculous that bans should be proposed for 2 valuable contributers for a silly thing like this.. &mdash; Skuld  01:46, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The ban tags were added by an anonymous IP, which seems to belong to User 70.20. Didn't he just 'leave' the wiki because he was unhappy with the banning done in the wiki? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 02:32, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Not acceptable
I'm going to have to say that I am deeply disappointed by both participants in this dispute. And I categorically reject the arguments that have been presented to make this revert war somehow "okay" and "because of unclear policy". They were neither. The policy of GW:1RV is clear and unambiguous and contains no provisions for leeway nor any clause for giving preference to any type of user. And both participant were well aware of the consensus on GuildWiki about reverts, they simply both chose to ignore it. There is no way around that fact, and there is no excuse. I find this even more saddening because both individuals are excellent contributors and valued opinion-makers here on the wiki.

However, knowing Stabber, she will already have taken a semi-permanent hiatus over this dispute and will not be available for comment for at least a while. If and when she does return, she'll likely be reluctant to comment, either way. Far from being a perfect solution, it is a workable one, and Stabber is well aware of her own tendency to hot temper, which is why she has repeatedly declined nomination for admin; quite frankly in anticipation of just such a conflict as this, one would assume.

That leaves one involved party, User:Karlos. The aftermath of this belongs on his talk page, which is where I will take it. -- Bishop [ rap|con ] 05:20, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

In Reviewing this...
I have been thinking about this incident through out the night. I am still divided over this:
 * On the one hand, I concede, without question, that the 2nd and 3rd reverts that I did were motivated by temper more than rational thought. In hindsight, I was impatient and ticked off. Impatient because I could have waited with the page not looking like I think it should until people discussed the matter. And I was ticked off at the way the revert was made, no explanation, then "congrats, you just broke 1RV" instead of an explanation followed by "indeed" as an explanation. Very childish. I did not expect such behavior from Stabber. I don't care how many warnings she gives about how tempermental she can get, it was childish. I let all that get to my head and I acted foolishly in the subsequent reverts.
 * On the other hand, I still don't buy that 1RV stands above all reason and logic. I am sorry. Even if this was to happen now between me and someone else or two other people. An unexplained RV deserves NO protection from the wiki. Especially if it's the work of an established contributor. That's just preposterous. I never understood 1RV to mean that, and if it does mean that, then I am against 1RV. So, user X makes an edit, adds useful info on something, User Y reverts and says nothing. Now, User X is bound by this weird "law" not to put the info back. He goes to the talk page and asks: "Why the heck was the info removed?" No one answeres for a few days, he gives up (he is still bound by the same weird law). We all know how many discussions die in talk pages because there are so many talk pages with issues being discussed. As it stands now, 1RV is a joke. It does not provide ANY provisions for the person whose work has been reverted to actually get his work in. A necessary provision should be that either:
 * a) It is okay for them to Re-Revert if there was no explanation provided in the edit summary/talk page. It is incumbent then upon the reverting user to no RV anymore and discuss it on the talk page.
 * b) If the RV was unexplained, they can request an admin to review the edit and the RV.

I personally would prefer a rule that says "Revert unexplained RVs."

So, yes, that means that I do not consider myself bound by 1RV as it stands today. That doesn't mean I condone what I did earlier, but it does mean that if I see a user RVing another user's work with no explanation and I feel the RV was unwarranted, I will revert it back and 1RV can go you know where. The exception I will make is if that happens to one of my edits, I will ask another admin to step in. --Karlos 07:35, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * That sounds fair enough to me, as I have confidence that you will explain your re-reverts. However, if a user revert^3ed your re-revert, even if it is without explaination, I would still request you not to revert^4 it unless you protect it first.  Without protection, you will just be inviting the other user to revert^5 your revert^4. - 08:08, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I have two problems with this.
 * First, I am not comfortable with an admin saying that he is not bound by an established GuildWiki policy. Any policy.  If a flaw is believed to exist in the policy, propose a revision in the policy talk page.  If it's a true flaw, it needs to be addressed.  While Karlos did suggest some revisions, those suggestions never made it to the policy or its talk page.  I can agree that the current policy should be ammended to say something like "unexplained RVs do not count towards the 1RV limit", but that doesn't resolve the issue, which bring me to:
 * Second, lets say someone reverts something, but this time includes a reason. The second person may not agree with the reason or even agree that it is sensible reasoning, so you once again must either do RV2 or fall into the same situation described above by Karlos under "On the other hand".  Personally, I've never seen that situation to be a problem.  If there has been a situation that needed more input on the talk pages, I've just posted on the talk page of an admin or two and that gets more input to the discussion (so, both changes suggested by Karlos would be needed).  The other option is to add an expiration to the 1RV rule (ie: no discussion input for x days and the RV counter resets).  Either an admin notification or a 1RV expiration resolves the issue.
 * I'll go to the policy talk page, and propose some changes to it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:17, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Revert without explaination is in violation of GW:FAITH, and therefore I find it fairgame to be not protected by 1RV. - 16:00, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Why do we have 1RV anyway, WP has 3RV, that sounds more like it &mdash; Skuld  11:44, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * as karlos said, he lost his logic after the prodding stabber gave him. how likely is someone to stop at 3 after if the other user un-re-reverted twice before? --Honorable Sarah 16:14, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Wikipedia often has situations where one user will be reverting a page against several other users. We tend to have more one-on-one arguments. It would prolong the revert war more than anything else, probably. I think there should be a hard-and-fast policy called "Explain Your Reverts" and a general (instructive rather than imperative) guideline called "Explain Your Edits". Semantics, I know, but "Revert Unexplained Reverts" offers the re-reverting party (i.e. the role played by Karlos in this little dispute) justification for breaking 1RV, while "Explain Your Reverts" offers a rule that helps define what's a legitimate revert and what's not. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 00:25, 17 June 2006 (CDT) )