Wikibooks talk:Editing disputes policy

Add a comment or vote:

Comment
Is there a similar policy at English Wikipedia? How does it work? --Derbeth talk 19:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia contains numerous topical articles from the status of a particular pop group to the affairs of the British deputy prime minister; an edit dispute policy that takes disputes to one side, out of the public eye, would not be acceptable in such an environment.


 * At Wikipedia there is a 3 reversions rule where no more than 3 reversions may be made but this is often ignored and just makes the argument into a slanging match on the talk page eventually resulting in appeals to arbitration committees etc. It also allows editors to wait until a few changes have been made and then sneak their interpretation into an article. An editable version of the disputed page, out of the eye of readers, would be a way of focussing on the problem of achieving a workable text rather than concentrating on any perceived idiocies of opponents. RobinH 09:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made some proposed alterations to the policy text, inserted below beneath a header. Originally I just put everything in the active voice, so the policy was clearer to me, but then I began seeing things which I thought we should try to work out. Existing PDF files should be allowed to stay, especially if the book was already in complete form, for example.
 * Even as I've written it, though, I can see other difficulties. What happens when an edit war spills out of one page or chapter into the whole book?    Do we need further clarification of the difference between vandalism and an edit war?  Do the authors and editors of a completed book have any right to keep their book's particular take on a subject more or less even? (For example, if someone decides the Ancient History textbook needs more alien invasions and cites Zechariah Stitchin in the bibliography, do those changes stay over the objections of ancient historians? Why shouldn't the new contributors be asked to go out and produce their own book, Aliens in the Ancient World? Andrew Watt 16:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Resolving Editing Disputes

 * An edit war occurs when a user or a small group of users (3 or fewer) repeatedly revert text to a previous form, or when such a user or group make a series of minor changes or additions that amount to a repeated reversion of text. Edit wars are not Vandalism; they are differences of opinion regarding the substance of a given book. Ideallly, edit wars should be resolved with research and references to primary sources, not bickering and personal attacks.


 * If a user or group perform reversions more than three times, any contributor or an administrator may remove the text from the main page, and move it to a disputed edit page which contains both versions of the disputed text. The main page should be reverted to original text present before the dispute began. The live page may not be changed while the dispute is in progress.


 * A banner and single link to the disputed edit page may be placed on the main page section of the book where the dispute has occurred. Otherwise it may not be referenced on any of the pages of the 'live' book although it may be referenced in Talk/Discussion pages. Interested users -- readers and contributors -- must resolve disputed edit page before integration back into the book. Resolution will have occurred if all parties agree; or failing this, and after a cooling-off period of two weeks, if a 2/3 majority of involved parties (defined as all users involved in the debate, plus active users who contributed to the book but were not involved in the disputed edit debate), plus one neutral administrator agree; the goal should be to have a large number of project participants happy with the results of the editorial procedure, so that they remain productive and participating users.


 * Users may not attach PDF files to a book while a book has a disputed edit page. They should be deleted when attached, though existing PDF file versions of the book may remain.


 * Once an edit war is resolved, the user or group may not restart the same dispute. However, In the interest of NPOV, a user or group of users should be encouraged to develop their own book projects on the same subject, so that would-be readers can make use of everyone's expertise, and have multiple resources for their own efforts.


 * Possible solutions to edit wars can include but are not limited to:
 * Contrasting paragraphs in which roughly equal POVs are given roughly equal space;
 * Contrasting paragraphs in which a distinctly minority viewpoint receives some but not equal space;
 * Research by both parties, and substantial links to high-quality primary and secondary sources; or
 * a new Wikibook project in which either new or old contributors develop a parallel but distinct text with different editorial assumptions.


 * As always, good faith on the part of all users until proven otherwise is assumed. Readers and contributors alike All contributors should seek to present high-quality products on Wikibooks. Contributors who continue an edit war after resolution are formally warned, then suspended for two weeks, and finally banned.


 * Once resolved the dispute may not be re-opened by any editor without the agreement of a majority of editors, or in the case of a tied vote, the agreement of a majority of editors and a neutral administrator. Disputes that have been resolved may only be re-opened through editor's communicating on Talk Pages, not through pre-emptive changes of text in the book.


 * Editors who do not adhere to these rules will be warned and, if warnings are ignored, banned.

---


 * That makes no sense. How do we re-open a dispute and get agreement from other editors, unless we raise the topic again? we have to mention the dispute, and argue the point if we want to get a majority of editors to agree with us. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The editors would contact each other on the Talk Page or the editor's Personal Talk Pages and debate the idea of re-opening the dispute - perhaps this would help them to resolve it without the need to re-open it. RobinH 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC) - I have added a line to the text above to include this. RobinH 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I crossed out some more sections of my policy edit to remove some bureaucracy, and I don't much like what I see, even though I wrote some of it. I think we do need some sort of way of resolving editorial disputes within books, that allows them to work towards a higher vision — but books also need to be completed, and shutting down a whole book or section for days or weeks while uncompromising editors on both sides wrangle...  well, that's not what I'm here to do.  Andrew Watt 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this should be an enforced policy
1. RobinH 18:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this for now, but the policy needs to be cleaned up. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 17:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This policy needs far too much work right now for me to cast my vote towards it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

2. The content could be more robust and informative, but the basics are there. -Matt 02:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Gentgeen 10:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC). One question, who has the authority to ban users who revisit a dispute

4. Good enough. Je suis 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this policy should be rejected
1. I appreciate the good intentions, but this is far too prescriptive. Generally speaking, the more red tape, the more it is exploited by those who troll and act in bad faith. WP has seen this happen time and time again. In my view, if a disruptive user adds something entirely unhelpful - such as a number of whole paragraphs into a GCSE Chemistry textbook that is unconnected with the GCSE syllabus - it should be deleted and if the user persists in re-adding it, despite having pointed out to them why it is being deleted, that disruptive user should be blocked. Under this policy, the good faith contributor seeking to remove the paragraphs will fail - they will be the first to do 3 reverts, they will be the one having to set up an alternative version of the page, and the disruptive editor will have succeeded in preventing a PDF version of the page being created. If the dispute does get resolved the right way, and a later disruptive editor (perhaps a sockpuppet of the previous one) re-adds the disputed material, the original editor would end up being suspended or banned if they tried to stop it - or, indeed, even mentioned it, as that would rekindle the old dispute. In short, this proposal prevents admins from dealing with trolls the way they should be dealt with (ie being quickly chucked off the site), and instead requires good users to give equal (or more weight if we add in the sockpuppets) to those who seek to disrupt, Jguk 16:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Which admin would do the blocking and on what authority? Would an admin be able to judge on a technical issue?


 * It seems to me that your main objection to the policy is the way that it could lead to an unfair ban. You mentioned the problem of a sock puppet re-instating an erroneous change to trigger a ban of another editor - clearly the policy needs to address this. The 3 revert victory for the non-good faith contributor would not occur because the book is reverted back to before the edit dispute (ie: before this contributor objected).


 * The principle idea of the policy is to get serious edit disputes out of the mainstream of Wikibooks. Taking the "edit war" offline is the first step. This would prevent editors from ruining the book during the disagreement. There would also be no personal benefit from the argument because it would be out of the public eye.


 * What is needed is a way forward that answers your concerns about bans but still protects books against serious disputes.


 * I would suggest changing the text about banning if the dispute is reopened to:


 * "The dispute may not be re-opened by any editor without the agreement of a majority of editors, or in the case of a tied vote, the agreement of a majority of editors and a neutral administrator. Editors who do not adhere to these rules will be warned and, if warnings are ignored, banned."


 * (Changing the text in the book in such a way as to produce a reversion is reopening the dispute).


 * This adresses your concern that a non-good faith editor might try to trap another editor. There is no '3 revert victory' because the text is re-instated to the form it had before the first objection during the phase of compromise on an "disputed edit" page. RobinH 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have integrated this change into Andrew's text above. RobinH 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

2.
 * I have reconsidered this policy, and removed my yes vote from above, because I feel that this policy is too wordy, too demanding, and too preachy. We don't need to be told precisely how many reverts constitute an edit war, how long a person must be banned for such a violation, who may or may not discuss the topic, etc. A discussion should never be closed: we don't need a majority of editors to continue a discussion on which complete concensus was not reached. I feel that if an edit war or a similar dispute is raging in which page content is changing quickly and in bad faith, administrators can choose to protect the page from edits for an arbitrary "cool-off" time, and to redirect attention to the appropriate discussion venue. Edit conflicts are allowed to happen, and users are permitted to disagree ad infinitem: people with differing beliefs on the content of a particular page should never be banned, reprimanded, or have their content arbitrarily rolled-back to an older version simply because they care. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But what about a biology text book for 15 year olds. Suppose some cult disagrees with evolution and continually reverts the text, what sort of study guide would that provide if the text were always changing? What if the admin were a member of a faith group with strong feelings on the issue? We need some sort of constitutional protection before such things happen. RobinH 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All this policy is attempting to do is to provide a stable text even if the subject matter is found to be contentious by a particular editor or small group in society. It seeks to do this by allowing full discussion and consensus building on the "disputed edit" page. RobinH 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think stability is worth the price of attempting to script everybody's actions in the case of a dispute. If one admin is clearly biased, and uses those biases to insert controversial text into a given module, then that admin can be disciplined accordingly. What we should not do is take away the power of judgement and freewill from our admins. Even if we do have this policy in place with all it's rules and penalties, biased admins can still abuse their powers if they choose to. Adding in all sorts of thou-shalt-nots is not a good idea. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are we trying to make stable texts? No, we're trying to make free texts.  Stable texts are produced for the profit of their copyright holders and publishers.  Free texts reflect the needs of their users.  Bernard of Clairvaux in the 12th century sent a letter in which he complains, "I sent you my book to read, but you have kept it and copied it and sent it to the world, and now there are so many words I cannot take back, and men have put words in my mouth that they think I should have said."  At least we have the satisfaction of a history, so that what we said, and what was added to us, is recorded.  That's about the best we can hope for here.  I vote No. Andrew Watt 19:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about rigid texts. Entirely. But in the Editing Disputes Policy all we are trying to achieve is a relative stability in the special circumstances of a dispute that has got out of hand. Although you are voting "No" to rigidly stable texts should that "No" also apply to a process that allows disputing editors to move to a consensus rather than fighting an edit war on the pages of a book? I would propose to adopt what is largely your text for this special case of edit warring (see above). RobinH 20:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the text of this proposed policy again, revised to active voice, but without my additions (which were a bad idea... for which I apologize).


 * An edit war occurs when a user reverts text to a previous form repeatedly, or when a user or group of users make repeated changes or minor additions that amount to a repeated reversion of text. If they make reversions more than three times, any contributor or an administrator may create a disputed edit page, containing the disputed text, and revert the original text to the form that was present before the dispute arose. No one may edit the live page while the dispute is in progress, nor reference the dispute page on any other page of the live book, though it may be discussed on Talk/Discussion pages. Interested parties must resolve difficulties on the disputed edit page before the text is integrated back into the book. All interested parties must find a compromise; if they cannot, after two weeks, a majority of parties plus a neutral administrator may agree on a text.   No one may attach PDF Files while a book has a disputed edit page and administrators will delete them when uploaded.
 * If an edit war is resolved the original contributors may not restart the same dispute. Contributors who do so may be suspended or banned.

3. I see this policy as punitive rather than editorial. It creates an opportunity for bad-faith contributors to manipulate policy, and it sets no guidelines for moving toward a better text: "Revert a text too often and we'll smack you one" vs. "Find ways to integrate many visions into a text." Some books would become filled with disputed edit pages because rival editorial groups would be more interested in bringing this Editing disputes policy into action than in finding a way to a better text. I say yes to a process that mediates between dissenting and argumentative editors, but I'm not sure that this is it. How about a more filled-out version of, disputed edits should be settled through research, citation of primary sources, direct communication and frank exchanges of ideas between users, with some arbitration by a neutral administrator when necessary? -Andrew Watt 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose: this policy isn't a policy, more like a description. I'd suggest putting teeth into it, modeling after w:WP:3RR, and using other toofs such as w:WP:RFC in order to keep it "democratized". At least there should be a clear way for the admins to wiegh the merits of each side aside from personal opinion. -- SB_Johnny 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

5. rejected: A clear Book Community policy should be created first and any reversions should be policed by its members contributors/authors that have invested time providing content to a work.--Panic 00:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * Editing disputes boil down to one of three situations:
 * Two or more editors, all here with the aim of improving Wikibooks, disagreeing over something.
 * Two or more editors, where there is at least one Wikibookian acting in good faith with the aim of improving Wikibooks, and at least one user who isn't
 * Two or more editors, all of whom are not editing here with good faith
 * Situation 1 may get heated, but really is very likely to be resolved somehow. We can point out ideas to help them resolve their differences and remind people that talking about differences and aims is most likely to lead to resolution. But really, this sort of situation will be resolved.
 * In situation 2, we should warn and then, if necessary, block the disruptive editor (at least until there is a commitment to behave) and let the good faith editor continue improving wikibooks uninterrupted.
 * Situation 3, once identified, is relatively easy. An admin comes in and blocks everyone until they agree to behave.
 * The only problem then is how to distinguish between the three situations. This calls for some judgment - and this judgment call should be based on admins' knowledge of the users, including user contribution history, how the user accesses wikibooks (if known) (eg open proxies are out), whether likely sockpuppets are involved, whether there is evidence of typical troll behaviour, whether it appears that the user is genuinely trying to help improve the wikibook or wikibooks or is only concerned with the particular area in dispute, evidence of disruptive behaviour on another Wikimedia project, and so forth. Admins, aided by comments from other users, ought to be free to use their experience and judgment on this one - trying to give hard and fast rules is, quite simply, unlikely to work, Jguk 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to rejected
I propose that this policy be moved to "rejected" status in 2 weeks time. RobinH 11:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)