Forum:Revert wars on templates
Recently a reversion war has erupted over story placement on the recent news template.
Certainty it has been decided it is not a protected template that anyone can edit. I have issue with people adding their own stories to the de facto "front page of the wiki" at their own discretion. Recently enthroned poopsmith, TheHumbucker was essentially put into the job of de facto editor of UnNews. There were other people interested in helping out and their continues to be so.
An impression that too heavy of editorial control is being handed out on what gets to the glorified list of recent unnews that appear on the front page. I have been consistently been reverting any addition tot hat template by an editor that wrote the added article. If I second person added it, I feel some form of editorial control was maintained. I do not judge the articles I revert, I have a simple criteria. Did the editor write the article s/he is adding? If yes, then I revert. If later another editor reverts my edit, other than the original editor, I drop out. That includes if Thehumbucker ads it because it is perfect for the front page, or if UserX-1 re-ads it. But I am afraid some well meaning editors are so pro-open wiki they disregard all other opinions and revert out of a sense of pride.
Maybe we are not all adults. We should however pretend we are. The front page is not a playground for bullies and told ya so games and kooties. That is what forums are for. --Kэвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 18:38, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Hi everyone. I think that two questions should be addressed in this discussion: First: Are there rules regarding UnNews, and second: if there are such rules, are they communicated? For example, if there is a rule saying you are not allowed to promote your own article in the Recent UnNews template, I would expect to find this rule in the comments of the template or in the template discussion, just as with the VFH rule that you're not allowed to self-nominate. I think it would be perfectly okay to establish such a rule, but I don't think it's okay simply to revert things just because someone personally does not like the fact that someone else promotes his own articles on the front page. Also, it's okay with me that there is a certain degree of editorial control of UnNews, but I don't think it's okay that just one person has the last word on what is funny and what is not. And again, if there is a person appointed chief editor of UnNews I would expect to learn this from the UnNews main page. Regarding the current case, I felt that the (not-so-)royal wedding was a hot news item and therefore worth appearing on the front page. I'm biased, however. In my home wiki I'm an administrator myself and can kick people at will. NaturalBornKieler (talk)
19:40, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
Please be certain, my decision to revert was based solely on who wrote an article and who promoted it tot he front page. Editorial considerations are not my forte, for the exact reasons you outline above. I only know for sure what is funny to me, what I think should be funny to others, and what I perceive to be funny to others. Sadly they are sometimes three different things. This issue came up as Spike aBANdoned ship, and there was a void on responsibility to unnews. Several capable editors came forward to take up the task. TheHumbucker was put in place by some forum, I am sure someone will point to for us. But I am on a roll with my keyboard, so am not going to look for it. Some users either are not happy with that outcome, or feel he is overstepping the authority of the ex-officio position of Editor in Chief to have the "last say" on what appears on the main page. I have gathered the impression from talking with him about the recent news template, is that he sees it as a "best of the best of the recent UnNews" based on General appeal to the random visitors to the Uncyc main page. His considerations seem to include Humor, style, topicality and tone. "recent articles" is of course a term which does not suggest that. Perhaps a change in name of that template to something on the order of "From the Desk of UnNews" would suggest a bit more editorial style to the template. Its current name suggests little more than a self edited list, which I believe is at the nature of this disagreement. This forum is not about wether or not any particular article belongs on the page because it is a) funny b) topical c) cures cancer, but as to who has the last say on what goes on the front page of the unnews template on the front page of the wiki. Wiki editing can give a lot of people the need to assert their authority. But in the example that caused me to start this forum I found 5 players
N:Editor Writer, H:Ex Offico, K:Belorussian Authoritarian Z:Undead Superhero and admin of this wiki, M:Fifth wheel aficionado.
I also see this as the turn of events: N writes story and adds to template • H reverts • M reverts • H reverts • K reverts • Z reverts • N reverts • H reverts • M reverts • K reverts • M reverts • M gets a one day ban. --Kэвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 20:40, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
- A sixth player has entered the arena (S:Bone breaking baron) NaturalBornKieler (talk) 21:48, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to wander in and point out that, regardless of what the thing in question is or what the views regarding that thing are, revert warring over it is not the way to make a point or decide matters. Now that I've probably pointed out something y'all already knew, I'll just be leaving.
~ 
23:31, 1 July 2011
I was really impressed how Humbuckler stepped up to the challenge ... to take up SPIKES reigns. That being said...even when SPIKE was pissing me off he NEVER got into a revert war with me. He would talk it out. NO MATTER WHAT...there are two guilty parties in any reverting war. No matter what. Both sides are always capable in dealing with the difference of opinion. And...maybe it should come from the initiative of the "leader" the person in "defacto control" to take that initiative? The big initiative...explain the problem...try to find a middle ground? --ShabiDOO 01:07, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
- The middle ground was found in the form of a nice ban for not stopping for middle ground, apparently.
~ 01:35, 2 July 2011
The events so far
This is a pretty extreme case, and I have had trouble even outlining the events. But essentially, I would have reverted the original author, had thehumbucker not, because of my consistent opinion that since UnNews has its own names space and all new articles are available there, the recent news template on the main page is more like an unnews feature. So when MattLobster started restoring the authors editsm I started reverting Mattlobster to coincide with my view of how it should be. Had Mattlobster been the first editor to change it and include the story in question, I would not have entered into the fray. I felt this was not about the story from Matt's perspective but about TheHumbucker's revert. Talk dialog confirms that assumption. Mattlobster in no way mentioned the article being of merti, but he was reverting thehumbucker's perceived since of control. So when Matt again restored the author's edit, Zombiebaron came to the same conclusion and reverted Matt. This is where it gets a little buddy, at the point the author jumped in and reverted zombiebaron. So score now is Mattlobster reverted Thehumbucker and me, Zombiebaron and I reverted Mattlobster. The Humbucker reverted the author twice. Mattlobster again reverted Thehumbucker to which I reverted Mattlobster and decried for an end to edit wars and explained why on his talk page. Mattlobster reverted me, then DrSkullthumper declared Mattlobster the most reverted editors with three editors overruling his edits and gave him a one day ban. The reason I left the author's name out of it, is the actual story is not the issue, but the placement of stories on the front page of the wiki. TheHumbucker feels he should have "final say", I am more neutral on that, but do not feel editor's should promote their stories, givenm they are already so promoted on the UnNews Namespace. --Kэвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 20:40, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
- You make a convincing argument about the mainpage thing, how it ought to be a highlight of them considering there is already a thing of all of them on the UnNews page proper... convinced me, at least. I suppose.
~ 03:00, 3 July 2011
- In all good faith I want to understand this...and even more would like to understand Lyrithyas reply...but neither make any sense :( --ShabiDOO 03:43, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the diff in question. Here's what happened: NaturalBornKieler wrote an UnNews, then added his story to the template. I reverted his addition after noticing that it was his own story that he'd added and, after reading the story, didn't think that it belonged on the template for the Main Page. Matt lobster reverted me, adding the story back into the list. Kevillips reverted Matt lobster's change, story out. Matt lobster reverted Kevillips, putting the article back in. Zombiebaron reverted Matt lobster. NaturalBornKieler came back and reverted Zombiebaron. I reverted NaturalBornKieler. Matt lobster reverted me. Kevillips reverted Matt lobster. Matt lobster reverted Kevillips. Dr. Skullthumper reverted Matt lobster and banned him for a day.
- Between reversions 8 and 9 I got my internet back working and left a quick note on NaturalBornKieler's talk page about whoring articles in the UnNews templates. NaturalBornKieler replied here on my talk page, and Kevillips answered him. Things also wound up on Matt lobster's talk page, as well.
- Thankfully, this is the first time things have blown to this proportion concerning the UnNews templates. However, this kind of thing, to a smaller scale, happens more or less every week. Typically on Friday, between teatime and sundown. ~
Talk 05:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- In all good faith I want to understand this...and even more would like to understand Lyrithyas reply...but neither make any sense :( --ShabiDOO 03:43, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Now its crystal clear. Kind of like Deuteronomy 3:13. --ShabiDOO 13:19, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
I don't get it. This didn't used to be a problem. We put our own pages there all the time. Why is this a problem now? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:20, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the layouts did change at one point. Were there two templates for recent UnNews before? Regardless, everyone reverting each other is not the right way to sort this out. Better would be to battle it out in a ring of jell-o.
~ 10:32, 4 July 2011