Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2014/August

definition of 'revert'
'Revert' is defined three times on this page.

In the lead

A revert means undoing the actions of another editor.

In the body

An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.

Another editor suggests one other editor, other editors suggests more than one. To avoid confusion they should be brought into conformity. I do not understand Bbb23's objection to my edit at all, but to be consistent Bbb23 should surely wish for the same wording throughout. Are there any objections to my redoing this edit. Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the policy does not mean the reverting has to be plural (reverting more than one editor); your edit, which Bbb23 reverted, changed the text to a plural matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you support the revert in the lead why don't you want to change the wording in the body of the article? Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no answer to this question. Does anyone object to my undoing Bbb23's revrt so that the definition of 'revert' is consistent throughout?  If not I'll undo it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the body text should be changed to "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes an editor's actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Obviously there is no requirement that multiple editors be reverted in order for the edit to count as a revert.- MrX 17:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 'An editor' could mean 'one other editor' The confusion I experienced was that I thought you could undo editor x 3 times, editor y 3 times and editor z 3 times, in fact that there was no limit to the number of reverts provided you didn't undo the same editor more than 3 times. That's clearly wrong. How do you put it succinctly and unambigously?  The body text to me is less ambiguous than the lead therefore I have altered the lead to fit the body rather than the other way round.  (To be pedantic deleting just two words could break the rule if they were the work of four editors, for example hair > grey hair > greyish hair > greyish hairs)Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. How about "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes any editor's actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."? - MrX 18:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad I've found someone that understands the point. This sounds better.  But I'd be reluctant to change the wording in the body of the article which to me is clear enough, I just wanted to make the lead conform to the body. But if you change the lead to 'any editor's' that seems an improvement on previous.  However I might change my mind on this tomorrow! Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think input from a few other users would be beneficial. Technically, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' ←(plural, possessive) actions..." could be construed to mean that only reverts of multiple editors edits count as reverts. In other words, one could revert a single editor's edits with impunity.- MrX 19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "That undoes the actions of one or more other editors" might do the trick. The 'pedantic point' I raised is valid because if you remove two or three sentences you could remove the actions of more than three editors in one an edit can only count as one revert. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would work and it would remove some ambiguity as well.- MrX 19:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised nobody much joins these discussions. I'm not bold enough to change without wider support. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Interest in a new addition to WP:3RRNO
I was just wondering if I could gauge some interest to a probably common sense addition to WP:3RRNO. It would be related to personal information and 'outing' of other users. Something like: 8. Removal of information that could be construed as outing another editor. This includes but is not limited to names, addresses, phone numbers, off-site connections or social media accounts. Tutelary (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you edit warring when you can ask for quick, quiet oversight? --Neil N  talk to me 20:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy consensus
If a user corrects WP:MOS errors on a page (e.g. corrects "12:00 pm" to "Noon" per WP:TIME), and another user reverts it back, then the original editor again corrects the error, and this cycle continues, with a post on the article's talk page pointing to an already-established consensus (satisfying the requirement to attempt to resolve the issue by reaching a consensus on the article talk page), are both users still faulted with the edit war, or is it only the user who reverts the corrections (e.g. "Noon" → "12:00 pm")? BenYes? 01:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What is not edit warring
I recently encountered a situation where I asked people to stop edit warring. It was mentioned that NPOV was being violated and suggested that this justified the reverting.

The policy does say "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring" but only gives BLP as an example. The specific 3RR exemptions also only mention BLP.

Is it considered edit warring if you consider a revert to be correcting a violation of NPOV or other overriding policies? Could this be clarified in the wording?

My personal opinion is the BLP is a bright a clear line whereas NPOV requires a certain level of interpretation and should not be exempt. Chillum Need help? Type  02:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Granted - a lot of NPOV is open to interpretation and the situation could get fairly snarly, pretty quickly. However, the recent situation that you're referring to is one of the clearer cases of NPOV and I would be opposed to any block towards any individual other than that specific POV pusher. I think there should be some grey area to allow us lowly editors leeway to keep an article at a stable version until someone with a mop is able to come along and either protect the page or institute the appropriate block(s) - and that can sometimes be hours.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Chillum bringing this up. I was one of the warring parties here (in Landmark Worldwide), bringing up the POV character of some edits not so much as an excuse for breaking 3R but rather as an explanation for why I was willing to go to 3 (but not past it). On the one hand, allowing more leeway (forget that I'm an admin engaged in unseemly edit warring) seems reasonable but can easily get out of hand (explaining an NPOV violation is rarely as straightforward as explaining/claiming BLP violation), but by the same token, I do feel that we're hamstringing admins by overplaying involvement and stressing such things as "don't revert to the right version". Tough call. Oh, Chillum, thanks for not blocking me. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am happy I did not, I would be eating trout for dinner! Chillum Need help? Type  03:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of hearing about trout on Wikipedia as if it's a bad thing. It's one of my very favorite fish, and if you don't want to eat it for dinner,, I'd be happy to. Did you get carried away, ? I actually watched the drama unfold but decided there were too many cooks in the kitchen for me to be of any real help. The only thing I would add to 's comment below is that context is everything, and the use of discretion, particularly in a situation where one editor has breached 3RR and one has not (although has arguably edit-warred), is not easy to predict and will vary from admin to admin. As Ed says, better to be cautious.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Trout is indeed a delicious fish. I hope you enjoyed the show more than I enjoyed playing my part in it. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be hard, but, no, I actually thought the other editor was way out of line, not just for the edit warring, but for the attitude. Not sure how to characterize it, a rather strange blend of pugnacious, repetitive, and whiny.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And you saw that I was not the only one reverting that edit. That's a big thing too, for me: editing against consensus. BTW, I fully understand that it does not make me look good in the eyes of many observers, but sometimes one has bigger fish to fry, and the history of that article proves that neutrality is a huge issue here. The editor/admin wishing to enforce the second of our five pillars runs into stuff like Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous, which is a hatchet job. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * NPOV not exempt Someone wanted to add inappropriate text to an article, and another editor wanted to remove it. That's a rather normal day at the office and is what WP:EW is intended to limit. It's only in egregious cases (like clear BLP violations) that an exemption applies, and even that is dubious as some clueless admins react to edit wars instinctively so a BLP-reverter could end up with a short-lived block. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone is making ridiculous changes to an article (but changes which are not vandalism or BLP) and Editor B reverts him, the average admin will probably hesitate before blocking Editor B. But Editor B is not protected by WP:3RRNO and should be cautious. If the  matter is reported at AN3 some combination of protection, informal mediation or helpful lectures are likely to occur.  EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The 3RR exemptions are not only focused on WP:BLP violations, and note that what is a WP:BLP violation can at times be debatable...so it might be best to take the matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The "discussion" above was interesting to read. I was particularly taken with your description of me as "pugnacious, repetitive, and whiny." My crime that resulted in such an insult? Restoring a couple of neutrally-worded, well-sourced sentences, taking issue when an admin called their own bald revert "admin intervention", and disengaging from the article (noting such on the talkpage) after it was clear that the two neutrally-worded, well-sourced sentences were being blocked by a few editors of that article. I disengaged rather than risk having Drmies decide to up his "admin intervention" from simply bald reverting to actually using his block button. LHMask me a question 16:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is reverting WP:MOS errors an exemption? BenYes? 21:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and advanced permissions
I recently added the following:

"The policy applies to all users no matter what level of permissions they may have. Administrators are especially cautioned to avoid participating in edit wars as it may give the impression that they are attempting to gain an advantage. Furthermore, no administrator should attempt to close a 3RR report if they are in any way involved in the relevant dispute."

It was reverted by Bbb23 with the edit summary "where does this come from?" I am not quite sure how to respond to such a question. Is the information I added incorrect? Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to unduly focus on admins when existing policy already covers all of this. Nowhere is there an implication that admins are immune and existing admin policy and edit warring policy as they are already treat admins equally. What is the problem this is trying to solve? Chillum Need help? Type  04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Where does policy cover this? I think I am addressing a missing part of the policy. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It really does seem UNDUE. The first six words of the first sentence alone would be sufficient. If there are admins abusing their status by edit warring, that's an issue for WP:ANI. The Edit_warring section is sufficient here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If there are admins abusing their status by edit warring, will other admins on the admin board be able to handle it?  I think experience shows that it won't happen.  For more information on this topic, please review the Blue Code of Silence Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What does this argument have to do with including redundant wording in the policy? If there is a conspiracy more words won't help, you would need a revolution. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 04:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The argument addresses EvergreenFir's claim that reporting admins at ANI is all that is needed. I don't think many admins are ever taken to task for edit warring.  I hardly think that addressing a known social problem is a "conspiracy".  This is how social groups work, and modifying the policy to address this problem is a Good Thing; sweeping it under the rug is not. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * From WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies", "editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved"


 * I will also argue that edit warring is not an administrative action unless the page is fully protected. This text from WP:PROT covers this: "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus".


 * If the page is not protected edit warring should be dealt with as a problem with an editor. Admin issues should deal with use of admin tools. General behavior unbecoming an admin is already covered, we don't need a special reminder in each policy. <b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 04:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We are talking completely past each other. I'm not talking about the discussion of this issue in other policies.  I'm talking about the discussion of these issues in this policy.  As you may or may not be aware, our policies and guidelines very often cross-reference each other and discuss the policies as a whole, in the context of each specific rule.  If you need examples of how all the policies and guidelines interact, I'm willing to give them to you, but I'm assuming you know this already.  Now, to address your points above:
 * The text in question does not concern edit warring as an admin action, nor does it say anything about protection. It says that because certain editors possess advanced permissions, they are especially cautioned not to edit war, as doing do could make them look like they are abusing their permissions, as edit warring often involves placing templates and warnings that include the threat to block.  That is to say, while they may not be using their tools, their position as an admin could be misused or perceived as exceeding their authority, because edit warring is enforced by admins themselves and often involves the threat to block.
 * This does not concern the abuse of admin tools. This concerns the abuse of edit warring by administrators.  That is to say, very rarely are admins ever blocked for edit warring, and the community believes that admins are protected by other admins, giving the appearance that the rules don't apply to them.  The proposed text directly addresses this idea.  Further, the added text discusses the potential for involved admins to participate in and close 3RR reports, and addresses it directly, specifically recommending against it.
 * Please note, neither point 1 nor point 2 appear in any other policy, and while other policies may discuss admin conduct or acting involved in disputes, this particular content concerns the appearance of admins in edit warring disputes, and the potential involved aspects of blocking edit warriors while also edit warring themselves, as well as the potential involvement of their 3RR closures on the edit warring noticeboard. All of this content is highly applicable to this policy and has a sound basis for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The policy covers it because the policy covers it. Admins are editors first. Only the exemptions at WP:3RRNO exist (i.e., Admins are no more exempt than anyone else). However, having a mop should not hamstring an admin. As a community, we do (of course) expect that admins will be an example of how-to-be-an-editor, but that RFA didn't add restrictions or caveats to their editing either. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what my proposed text addresses. It addresses the appearance of edit warring by admins, not the abuse of tools.  It also addresses the involvement of admins on the 3RR board. To repeat, admins involved in edit warring (not falling under any exemptions) have the appearance of a conflict of interest in several ways.  First, admins are not supposed to edit war, yet many do and are not sanctioned for it (see the Blue Code linked above).  Second, admins enforce edit warring with sanctions, placing their actions in a dual light, i.e. COI (and unlikely to be enforced due to the Blue Code). Third, editors are often threatened by admins in edit wars, which places their position of trust in a context of abuse.  Fourth, involved admins may close 3RR disputes on the noticeboard, making them conflict with accepted norms.  The proposed text up above addresses all of these problems. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I think it is redundant policy creep. Any such issues can be dealt with using existing policy. Is there a specific incident you are worried about that policy is failing to cover? <b style="color:OrangeRed">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 04:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't have policy creep in a policy page. That is simply ridiculous. Perhaps you mean instruction creep....but this IS a policy page.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing but objections? I already addressed your point about "redundancy". I showed that 1) in practice, our policies integrate and cross-reference other policies in the context of the policy under discussion.  For example, our policy on Neutral point of view refers to all of our major policies and guidelines and shows how they work within the context of NPOV.  This is not "redundant policy creep", this is how policy works. No policy exists independently of any other policy. 2) I've addressed that the issues cannot be dealt with using ANI or any other admin-centric solution, as admins are unwilling to take other admins to task. 3) The proposed text addresses edit warring by admins and their involvement on the 3RR board directly, and shines light on the problem in a timely, relevant manner, which is helpful to the community at large. "Admins don't like it" isn't a valid argument. Viriditas (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have read your arguments and I remain unconvinced of your point of view. ""Admins don't like it" isn't a valid argument" is a straw man argument, nobody has suggested that and it is sophistry at its worst.

Again what is this problem with admins at the 3RR board that you want to shine a light on? What incident are you referring to? Use diffs to shine a light on problems.

If you don't like how admins handle issues this change to policy will change nothing. If you think there is a conspiracy you might try arbcom.

You say "No policy exists independently of any other policy". Yes that means that the text in WP:ADMIN that says admins need to follow policy applies to WP:EW, this supports my position not yours. <b style="color:SaddleBrown">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 05:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed my arguments. You addressed your own straw man, arguing that "edit warring is not an administrative action" and that protection was a valid exemption, when I never proposed edit warring was an admin action and I never addressed the exemption of protection.  What I have said is that "the policy applies to all users no matter what level of permissions they may have.  Administrators are especially cautioned to avoid participating in edit wars as it may give the impression that they are attempting to gain an advantage.  Furthermore, no administrator should attempt to close a 3RR report if they are in any way involved in the relevant dispute." You've never once addressed why is it not acceptable to add it to this policy.  Finally, you close with another straw man (as if that wasn't enough already!) saying, "If you don't like how admins handle issues this change to policy will change nothing".  Actually, this policy modification will change everything.  It will make it clear to admins that their edit warring won't be tolerated by the community.  I don't have to be an admin to make this observation, and I certainly don't have to be an admin to put up with it.  This policy addition puts a line in the sand and says "admins can't do this", and that needs to be said, because they are doing it, and there is no enforcement to prevent it because admins are unwilling to propose sanctions on their own. Therefore, the argument for making this change is supported and needed, and required to enforce fairness for all, regardless of advanced permissions.  Admins must be told that the community will not put up with it anymore. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you are not hearing what I and others are saying because you don't like it. Regardless you have not gained consensus and are not likely to. I see no point in carrying on. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 05:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What have you said? You changed the subject, argued for things that were never said or stated, and tried to undermine my argument by distracting from it.  I don't like that, of course. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Consider it this way: you made a WP:BOLD edit that was reverted as part of WP:BRD. While discussion has just begun, there's clearly no consensus yet as to whether or not your edit should be kept, modified, or rejected. There's no need for throwing around alphabet soup and getting flustered about what-ifs. It's clear from WP:ADMIN that they cannot abuse their powers and there are mechanisms in place to deal with it when it occurs. This talk page and the EW page are not forums are making points.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is apparently related to Viriditas's recent block by for edits on WP:AN3 found here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. I also think this is not an appropriate place to seek satisfaction. Tough cases make for bad law. If you think policy is being ignored or circumvented then go to ANI, if you think the admins there are conspiring to protect each other then go to arbcom. Please don't seek a solution by altering policies. <b style="color:Black">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 05:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. This has nothing to do with the circumstances of my recent block, and I note yet another attempt to distract and change the subject by attacking the messenger.  Anyone can look through the noticeboard archives and see the pattern of sanctions on admins who edit war.  It's close to zero. Yes, a few have been brought to arbcom and had their permissions removed, but it's unlikely that the final straw had anything to do with edit warring.  No, this modification was made because I observed at least one admin had been edit warring without sanction on two different articles within the last week.  And other admins had repeatedly dismissed the edit warring by this admin without another thought.  Meanwhile, at least two articles had been disrupted, along with multiple users.  In any case, it's very clear that admins cannot police themselves, so we are left to modifying the policies to make it very clear that edit warring by admins is not acceptable.  Unsurprisingly, this modification was reverted without reason by an admin.  I am not seeking satisfaction of any kind.  I am seeking to hold admins accountable to the policies and guidelines that bind all editors, regardless of permissions. Please stop changing this discussion by constructing frayed straw men, by making trivial objections, and by attacking the messenger.  Please address and discuss only the ideas in this proposal.  If you can't do that, I'll formalize the RfC with the help of other editors and advertise it to a wider community.  Admins cannot be allowed to exempt themselves from sitewide policies, and it's clear that admins can't patrol and sanction other admins effectively. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is this controversial if other policy and guidelines support it as some suggest. It does seem to be relevant and in some ways important to note for clarity? I don't get it. Why would that not be considered an improvement here?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * note that Mark Miller was invited to this discussion by Viriditas. Spartaz Humbug! 07:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we please do this without canvasing? There is more of it here. <b style="color:SteelBlue">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 07:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you stop with the accusations and get your Wiki definitions under control. It is most certainly not inappropriate to invite editors to a discussion without bias.  It's actually encouraged. I should also like to note that the editor who reverted my changes has not participated in this discussion.  Instead, his talk page stalkers have been dispatched en masse to "deal" with me.  To paraphrase Mel Brooks, "It's good to be an admin!" You can edit war all you want, you don't have to discuss your reverts, and you can unleash an army of editors against anyone who challenges your authority.  Well, that's exatly the kind of behavior my proposed edits are trying to stop. Thanks for the real time demonstration of the problem. It's been highly instructive. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * At this point you are getting difficult to take seriously. Admins have unleashed an army of editors on you? I find that hard to believe. I think you are jumping at shadows. <b style="color:SaddleBrown">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 07:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So...the fact that he asked me in a neutral manner to comment means I don't deserve an answer? Please note that I have neither supported or opposed this. I asked a question. By the way...the page is on my watch list and I regularly contribute to these policy discussion and Viriditas knows that policy based discussions interest me.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It would have not been canvassing if Viriditas had notified me, the obvious intended target of their latest single-issue crusade (just put my name in that policy proposal, dude). Instead, they run off to Lithistman, who thinks consensus doesn't mean anything at all(note where I reverted them) and keeps harassing me on my talk page. Note that canvassing isn't just about the neutrality of the message, but also about how the recipients are selected, so it's cute that Viriditas picked someone who's been in conflict with me recently. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support My $0.02: In theory, all policies apply to admins as much as regular editors. In practice it is quite different. I see admins edit war and engage in personal attacks. I've not once seen an admin blocked for either thing. The only sanction I've ever seen an admin receive is losing their tools for sockpuppetry. That's it. And it's not right. But it's also not likely to change, as it's engrained in the culture of this project that (again, in practice) admins are treated much differently than regular editors with regards to sanctions and blocks. LHMask me a question 11:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as entirely unnecessary instruction creep, and also implies incorrect things. The idea that administrators are editors and are subject to the same behavior rules that apply to all editors when editing is already well-established in our policies, in particular WP:ADMIN.  The danger introduced by the suggested wording change would be to imply that, when it comes to editing, admins are especially something that other editors aren't, or that certain behavior rules apply more to admins than other editors--this is untrue.  If there's a specific incident, take it to WP:ANI.   12:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be theoretically "established" in policy. I have not observed that it is "established" in practice, though. In my experience, it's quite the opposite. LHMask me a question 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that this discussion is really tilting at the wrong windmill. Policy is clear that editors who happen to be admins should not be treated any differently than any other editors, and the policy wording does not need to change.  The core issue appears to be the enforcement of this policy, that's a different problem altogether and can't be addressed by editing policy pages.   14:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet this policy does not make that clear and, in practice at least, editors w/the mop are rarely, if ever, treated the same as regular editors. Adding a couple lines to this policy making it clear that it applies the same to admins is a reasonable way to address that issue. LHMask me a question 14:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well we both agree on two points: that policy (as a whole) indicates that editors who happen to be admins are working under the same rules as all other editors, and the enforcement of that principle ("in practice") is a separate issue.  What we don't agree on is whether adding wording to this particular policy page will really make a difference regarding that.  In my view, WP:CREEP dangers are present with no visible benefit...  I understand you disagree on that, but I'm not getting the feeling we will come to an agreement on that here.   17:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In your view, what is the specific danger of "policy creep" in this area? All the wording really does is make clear that the current practice of admins being let slide on edit warring contravenes policy. The danger of not having such a "bright line" passage in this policy (and others) is that such a "let it slide, s/he's an admin" attitude (which is very pervasive) then comes to be seen as not a big deal--as is evidenced on this very page. LHMask me a question 17:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I already provided that in an earlier reply, see the part starting "also implies incorrect things..."  18:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That note did nothing of the sort. You seem to think that such a note might--what?--make admins feel like they have to edit war less than other users? That's a bad thing exactly how? Adminship does come with an increase in responsibility, and should come with an even stricter adherence to the projects policies. As is currently practiced, this isn't remotely the case. LHMask me a question 19:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a great idea and I thank Viriditas for raising the issue. The policy needs to be clear that admins don't get special treatment with regard to edit warring. It is not obvious to new users that admins are not privileged when it comes to editing content. It is apparent to me that there is a "blue code" amongst some admins which is harmful to the integrity of the project. If the only reason for not including it is that it's implicit, then clarifying it for the benefit of less experienced editors would seem to be an improvement. So-called policy creep should be the least of our concerns. - MrX 17:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Policy already says admins have to follow policy, there is no loophole. It is already codified, it is already explicit. I still have not seen it demonstrated what problem this is supposed to solve, only vague references to admin conspiracies.


 * Your problem is in enforcement not in the letter of the policy. Addressing an enforcement issue by making the policy repeat what it already says is futile. If there is a problem with enforcement then address enforcement. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 18:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've already explained why this is important to less experienced users. It's not repetitive, because it's not currently explained in the this policy. What problem would arise out adding this clarification to this policy? - MrX 18:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is willing actually answer this question. The only quasi-answer is that it's "policy creep", which it actually is not. It's clarifying what is supposed to happen, but in practice, rarely if ever does. And your point about new users being confused about whether admins have to abide by the same rules is well-made also. There's no real reason that this short clarification is a problem, other than "it just is", apparently. LHMask me a question 19:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Policy creep is the problem. The same thing being said in multiple places can introduce contradictions in policy without need is the problem. How on earth does a policy that applies directly to admins important to less experienced users? Again, the problem is not in the wording of policy, it is in the enforcement of policy. If there is a problem at all and I still have not been shown evidence of that. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 18:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Just the behavior of the admin on this page makes it clear they need things spelled out to them specifically.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I could not have said it any better. The stonewalling of such an innocuous, simple addition is prima facie evidence of the need for such specificity. LHMask me a question 22:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment to : Your edit to the policy and self-revert was WP:POINTy at best. The policy page is not a place for you to express your views with phony edits. You could have made whatever point you want here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to learn to use appropriate edit summaries, and not to mark changes as "minor" that are not minor. And, quite frankly, I don't care what you think of what basically amounted to a null edit to the policy page. That's your issue, not mine. LHMask me a question 22:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll restrain myself. All I'll say is if you're referring to my revert, it wasn't marked as minor.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What's that supposed to mean, you'll "restrain" yourself? And you DID mark your edit as minor. That you don't even realize isn't good. "22:01, 16 September 2014‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,492 bytes) (-383)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Viriditas (talk) to last version by Flyer22 - where does *this* come from?)" The "m" is for "minor", and your edit summary explained nothing about your revert. It might has well have been blank. LHMask me a question 23:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I learned something about minor. I looked at the history and my contributions (separately) and didn't see the m, but when you click on the diff, you do see the m. Didn't know that because I either intentionally mark innocuous edits as minor or the software does it for me. In this instance, because there were 3 edits to revert, I did a "sum", which is the easiest way to undo all of the edits other than a rollback, which I did not want to do. The software adds the m apparently for that kind of undo. As far as I was concerned, though, I didn't mark it as minor. As for the edit summary, I've already said what I believe about that - and still believe - on my talk page in response to Viriditas's complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just read it, and your response there was as wholly inappropriate as the initial edit summary: "My edit summary was more than you deserved. You made a significant change to a core policy." That "explanation" is problematic for two main reasons: 1) It's incredibly arrogant and disrespectful; and 2) the edit Viriditas had made was in no way a "significant change." It was actually quite a minor change, as it simply clarified that administrators have to abide by the same regulations as us regular editors. What exactly was "significant" about that? And finally, please make certain that whatever technical snafu caused a bald revert to be marked "minor" gets fixed, and quickly. Marking such an edit "minor" implies that the revert is basically for vandalism. LHMask me a question 23:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop. This is not constructive. Bbb23 made a good faith edit and that is how we got to this point, but it is simply not an issue that needs to be debated. It really isn't.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My issue wasn't so much with the edit, as it was with the non-edit summary and the fact it was marked "minor", as if what Viriditas had placed were routine vandalism or something. And of course with how disrespectful and arrogant Bbb23 was when asked to explain his edit summary. I that's at least tangentially relevant here. LHMask me a question 00:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Using WP:CANVASS to dismiss counter-arguments
Placing a neutrally-worded notice on an editor's talkpage informing them of a discussion they might be interested in is not canvassing. I would ask that the above editors using WP:CANVASS to dismiss valid questions and concerns stop doing so. LHMask me a question 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I had dismissed the arguments put forth by Viriditas long before I mentioned canvasing. The arguments were dismissed because they seemed to seeking to increase enforcement by adding redundancy to policy. I mentioned canvasing because Viriditas was posting on pages of people that were likely to agree. The one had nothing to do with the other. <b style="color:LightCoral">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 16:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Likely to agree? Really? Viriditas will tell me when he disagrees with me and is not afraid to tell me straight up. As I am not afraid to tell them. Get your facts straight. The two of us used to fight like cats and dogs because of how much we disagreed. Just because we got over it and now try to work together on some article we both know we have strong interests in is not some conspiracy against you.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out in detail that already existing policy covers this. Adding redundant wording to policy is not going to make policy more enforceable. If you think there is an issue with admins not being treated equally repeating the same thing in policy won't help. Seek wider community scrutiny or go to arbcom, don't play with the policies to make a point. <b style="color:red">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 16:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You either do not understand canvass or you haven't followed the recent history to see that Mark Miller is a user who has recently vehemently supported Viriditas in the dispute that got them blocked for disruption and that Viriditas invited them to the discussion at a time when they were gaining no traction and had been told that the consensus was clearly against them. Surprise Surprise Mark Miller then weighs in to support Viriditas' pov. Forgive me but AGF has only limited utility and the picture does look different when you look at the wider facts. Spartaz Humbug! 13:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. You blocked Viriditas for a specific reason, for reverting an admin on the edit warring page and I never supported or argued against that. Please get your facts straight before you accuse others of such.....stuff. The support I gave was a different issue and discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And of course you are another editor invited to participate by Viriditas and have supported their POV. Needless to say I'm not astonished that you are disagreeing about that being canvassing. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am unsurprised that you are dismissing me out of hand because Viriditas notified me at my talkpage with a neutrall-worded post. I am no ally of his. I don't recall ever even interacting with him prior to yesterday. LHMask me a question 14:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion taking place between the two of you on your talk page makes it completely clear that Viriditas would have known you would have supported his point of view when he notified you of this discussion. That does rather colour your commentary and I'm confident that genuinely neutral editors will see the underlyaing landscape beneath your lofty rhetoric. (note that I have not contributed to this discussion) Spartaz Humbug! 15:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My rhetoric is only colored by my personal experiences regarding how admins are treated in practice. Your accusations of collusion are unfounded, unfair, and completely inappropriate. You should retract them immediately. I have been unfailingly polite to you during this discussion, while you have been the opposite towards me. LHMask me a question 16:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * perhaps you should reread what I wrote as your interpretation of my meaning doesn't reflect what I actually wroteSpartaz Humbug! 16:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I read it. I understood it. I pointed out where you assumed bad faith of me. LHMask me a question 17:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand it because at no time did I accuse you of colluding or acting in bad faith. Is this not clear to you? Perhaps you could highlight the part of my previous comments where I accused you of colluding? Spartaz Humbug! 18:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are not many other ways to read "you are another editor invited to participate by Viriditas and have supported their POV. Needless to say I'm not astonished that you are disagreeing about that being canvassing." That reads, to me, as claiming I'm acting in bad faith, and in some way colluding with Viriditas. I find that quite offensive. LHMask me a question 19:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting you feel that responding to canvassing is colluding, that suggests you feel guilty. In fact, at no point have. I accused you of anything apart from excessive application of gf. Indeed I have generally used the term notified rather than canvassing. I'm afraid you are applying your own interpretation to my words rather then the one I intended. Interesting. Spartaz Humbug! 21:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop with the pop psychology BS. YOU are the one accusing me of in some way colluding with him. Stop doing so. LHMask me a question 22:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "playing with the policies to make a point." It's codifying what is supposed to already be happening into writing that makes explicit that it must happen, so admins wishing to excuse other admins don't have any loopholes. LHMask me a question 17:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, you have dismissed both Mark's and my own counter-arguments, simply because Viriditas put a couple of neutrally worded sentences on our talkpages letting us know this discussion was happening. THAT is improper. LHMask me a question 17:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not dismissed your arguments at all, I have simply been unconvinced by them. If policy already requires something then we will get improve enforcement by repeating it. Policy should not say the same thing over and over as doing so would risk contradictory interpretations. This is already covered in the administrator policy. <b style="color:SaddleBrown">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 18:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there not already "contradictory interpretations"? It would seem so, to this little old editor, given how different the response to administrators' breaches of policy versus non-admin breaches works in practice. This very minor addition would make clear that the status quo of differing standards of consequences for admins and non-admins is forbidden by the edit warring policy at least. LHMask me a question 19:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate notification
--Mark Miller (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For those editors and admin that do not understand this behavioral guideline, what it says is...if I have previously been involved in discussion on the topic or similar topics. I am an interested party and it is appropriate to notify me. All one has to do is check the history of this talk page to see that I am an interested party here.. get over it.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To be as clear as possible:
 * Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article. I have edited both the article space here and involved in discussions on this talk page, as well as being a major contributor to BRD, a relevant topic to this one.
 * Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) I have participated in discussions both here and across a rang of talk pages in regards to this topic.
 * Editors known for expertise in the field I have some small expertise on this topic as a volunteer at the Dispute resolution Noticeboard, a major contributor to Editor Retention and the Teahouse, where I regularly advise editors and contributors about crossing the 3 revert rule.
 * Editors who have asked to be kept informed. This is the only one that I didn't fall under. But I am now going to ask Viriditas to please keep me informed about this debate and any debate in the future here or on any related topic. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too!, feel free to post a note on my talk page next time you want to blackball me. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop. It's not like Viriditas has a badge he can wave around to try and intimidate other editors. LHMask me a question 00:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL! Drmies...intimidated? Bwahahahahahahaha! you don't know Drmies well do you? ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Exception
What about reverting obvious vandalism, such as ? (PS I've already reached the 3RR limit on that page, so I can't revert it.) -- User J Dalek  04:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See the first bullet point of WP:EW and WP:3RRNO point #4.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't know how I missed that. -- User J Dalek  04:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * lol no problem. I've also submitted that page you linked to WP:RPP.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)