User talk:Bradv: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Question about 1RR: Replying to Kolya Butternut (using reply-link)
Line 191: Line 191:
:::Yes, I do believe we are agreed. The big picture of how to write an encyclopedia (or indeed, how to build a society) is important, and the overall trend has to be an upward one. It is easier to destroy than to create, so our systems and policies need to be biased toward continuous improvement. Therefore, crying ONUS at every change is detrimental to the project, and the burden is properly on all editors to work together to find compromise in order to improve the encyclopedia. The fact is, many of our articles are complete crap, and if ONUS prevents people from improving them it [[WP:IAR|must be ignored]]. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 16:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes, I do believe we are agreed. The big picture of how to write an encyclopedia (or indeed, how to build a society) is important, and the overall trend has to be an upward one. It is easier to destroy than to create, so our systems and policies need to be biased toward continuous improvement. Therefore, crying ONUS at every change is detrimental to the project, and the burden is properly on all editors to work together to find compromise in order to improve the encyclopedia. The fact is, many of our articles are complete crap, and if ONUS prevents people from improving them it [[WP:IAR|must be ignored]]. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 16:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
::::I feel that if disputed changes are made to text which has explicit or implicit consensus those contentious changes should not remain in place through a discussion and RFC process that could extend for over a month. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 16:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
::::I feel that if disputed changes are made to text which has explicit or implicit consensus those contentious changes should not remain in place through a discussion and RFC process that could extend for over a month. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 16:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::Sure, if it's a legitimate dispute and not just one or two editors who don't like a new development. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 16:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:53, 5 September 2020

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Late apologies

Hello Bradv, I just wanted to issue an apology for previous edits I made on the Kim Jong Un talk page many months back. While the issue is over, I still wanted to issue a formal apology as I continue editing. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, I'm not entirely sure what this is about, but thank you for saying it. I hope you find satisfaction in helping to write an encyclopedia. Cheers. – bradv🍁 18:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chadwick Boseman on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WKWWK/Kosh

I knew there was something suspicious there - but couldn't put my finger on enough to do anything. Nice work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thirsty work, sweeping them streets  :) ——Serial 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 17

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (July and August 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 17th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Stay safe --DannyS712 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

You claim that I am in an edit war when these edits have been on this page for weeks (some over a month) at this point. I have pointed to the other editor that they should be left (currently) due to edit consensus and I would be happy to debate on the talk page about their conclusion as well as the meaning of the article. No one has reached a consensus on either of these two things, and considering that these edits have been on this page for such a large length of time, the meaning of the article should have a consensus on the talk page before they are deleted. The other editor has continually deleted them while I have pointed them to this. I also pointed out to the other editor that I would be happy to debate on the talk page which I’ve been doing. However, no consensus has been reached and the other editor continually deletes these edits. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, please see WP:EDITWAR. You need to discuss this and not just continue reverting. – bradv🍁 21:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous! I didn’t edit the page even once after you gave me the warning. Please give me back editing privileges now. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guide to appealing blocks, and then you can formulate an appeal on your talk page or at WP:AN. I'll be looking for two things: 1) that you understand why you were blocked, and 2) that you have a plan to edit constructively going forward. – bradv🍁 01:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This block is ridiculous. After adding so many good edits to an article, this block should have never occurred. And, after you gave me a warning, I stopped editing it! I’ve been through the process before and it takes a few days if not weeks to get unblocked. However, I’m appealing to you directly that I’ve made so many good edits that a block is just ridiculous! You should overturn this block immediately. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This response doesn't meet either of my criteria. – bradv🍁 04:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know why I was blocked, it was for edit warring. To go forward I will discuss before adding anything back so an edit war can be avoided. Does that meet it? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this is ridiculous. If I agree to not add this (or anything similar to this) back without discussion, will you please unblock me? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you still think this is ridiculous is concerning. What assurance do I have that you won't immediately make a bunch of reverts to this article? Have you even tried to discuss any of your proposed changes on the talk page since I've issued this block?
Regardless, my talk page is not the place to discuss this. Read WP:GAB, and post an unblock request on your talk page, or bring it to WP:AN if you still think I have this wrong. Good day. – bradv🍁 23:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is ridiculous is that I was blocked, not that what I did wasn’t wrong. I agreed not to do it again and if I did, I’m sure you and plenty of other editors would be happy enough to block me indefinitely or for a long time. It’s happened to me before. I haven’t tried to discuss it because I’m blocked from the page. I’ve made the last edit on the talk page but no one's responded. I’ve read that article before and tried to apply before but it takes weeks for an unblock to occur. If you won’t do anything, I’ll probably wait it out but I’d like my full editing privileges back. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about 1RR

Hi, Bradv - what exactly is the purpose of the 1RR sanction in the following scenario: an edit is made, and challenged as UNDUE in an article that is outdated and riddled with noncompliance to appear more as an attack page that pushes a particular POV, but one side refuses to accept that the article has issues, they outnumber the opposition and tag team to restore the challenged material - what purpose is 1RR supposed to serve? If the purpose is to prevent attack pages or whitewashing, it has failed because it opens the door to POV creep at the expense of NPOV. I also thought that when an edit is added and reverted as UNDUE in an article that is under DS, the ONUS to restore is on the editor who wants to restore it, which is more inline with BRD, meaning they must discuss on the TP and acquire consensus first. Instead, what I'm seeing is a bit of back and forth by opposing editors, each side reverting or restoring, while ONUS and consensus are ignored. What part am I not understanding about how DS 1RR is supposed to benefit the project? Atsme Talk 📧 11:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, the purpose of 1RR is to slow down the rate of edits and force discussion on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. There will still be edits that people won't like, they'll just happen at a slower rate and allow more room for discussion. – bradv🍁 13:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI - I am being followed by MrX as exampled by this diff, in red text nonetheless. I actually came here for your opinion based on this comment by Mr Ernie, and my 2 responses here, as well as this discussion. I don't want to make another mistake that I have to strike if I can avoid it. Is that too much to ask? I'm doing my best to adhere to our PAGs, but the harassment, bullying and aspersions are relentless WP:BAITING. I just want him to stop his highly disruptive behavior. It takes away from my enjoyment as a contributor on WP - and I'm not the only who is being treated in this manner. I have no desire to escalate it, and believe that a simple reminder to MrX to back off would prove helpful. I am to the point where I'm afraid to express my views for fear of being attacked and harassed. I can't even come here and consult you without being harassed. Atsme Talk 📧 15:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I don't think it is any secret that several of those editors closely watch our edits and those of their "close collaborators," for lack of a better way to put it. In my case, one in particular has a peculiar habit of arriving at articles I've recently edited to simply revert me and move on. What I learned recently at the AN where we last discussed ONUS was that it's ok to not follow the policies if you are convinced the other side has a different POV. If the restrictions were to ever be enforced, those editors who restored the text while discussion was underway should receive sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) C'mom Atsme. Do you really expect people to believe that you came here about a discussion that has been stale for 11 days, and not the discussion on Talk:Steele dossier? Anyone can look at your contributions today and see that posted here one minute after I posted in the dossier discussion, and they can also see that you responded to my article talk page post eight minutes later. I really think you should stop pretending to be a victim. If you believe that you are being bullied, baited, and harassed, you can take your evidence to AE. I'm not going to stand for you casting aspersions about me or other editors. - MrX 🖋 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, is it your position that reverts of different material don't actually stack, but are counted as separate actions and not considered 1RR violations? Because that seems like a novel interpretation of WP:3RR as pertaining to 1RR... 1RR, as being analogous to the three-revert rule highlights that an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Or am I missing something else here? Many thanks! El_C 16:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote in particular is "generally people are allowed to make multiple reverts provided they are to different content" and it is in Brad's first reply in this thread. This is where I am basing my interpretation from. The example in question, which I highlighted in my first post there, showed 2 entirely different reverts separated by other editor contributions. The discretionary sanction wording is "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." Mr Ernie (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is how I choose to enforce it, but I am fully aware that is more lenient than policy actually says. By the letter of WP:3RR and the applied page restriction, Mr Ernie's latest series of edits, which constitute one revert, would be disallowed by the revert less than 24 hours ago. – bradv🍁 16:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, those are not reverts. Deleting content is not automatically a revert. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does it "undo another's actions"? I haven't looked into the history so I'll let you decide that, but by the letter of policy I suspect these edits count as a revert. – bradv🍁 16:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that content was by definition added at some point (in this case a while ago) by an editor's actions. If someone comes across a random, little-visited article and removes a poorly worded sentence added 3 years ago by an IP, you would consider that a revert? I have to say, the more you and I discuss reverts the more confused I become. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the letter of policy that would count as a revert. Of course, that is not an issue with the average article, but when an article is contentious and highly active, it is best to stick to one revert per day in order to allow for other editors to catch up and discuss. And yes, I know it's confusing – I would love to see the rules simplified, but the more I discuss it with people the more I realize that's impossible. Listen to other editors, take your time, and don't try to game the rules to gain an unfair advantage. The collaborative editing process works best when people work with each other, rather than against each other. The rules are designed to encourage that. – bradv🍁 16:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, this is kind of exactly the point Atsme and I are trying to make. I reverted material yesterday. Valjean followed the process and opened a discussion, which is still ongoing. SPECIFICO, MVBW, and VM all re-reverted to include that material before discussion had concluded, and only MVBW has joined the discussion. I and I think Atsme are contending that this is gaming the system if not an outright violation of at least ONUS. So what do we do now? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this is a flaw in the restriction applied to this page. Anyone can restore contested material without waiting for consensus to develop, provided they don't do it twice in 24 hours. Awilley applied this restriction, perhaps they'll consider reevaluating its effectiveness. – bradv🍁 16:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As to how to work within this particular set of circumstances, your best bet is to draw further attention to the dispute, either by means of an RfC or a noticeboard post, and hope that those who show up don't choose to just continue the edit war. – bradv🍁 16:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A removal of longstanding text is not a revert necessarily. It may be involve the removal of material added by many editors. That removal should not be seen as having undone the edits by all of those editors. El_C 16:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks for the background, Mr Ernie. Wow, Brad, I'm one of the most active admin (well, generally, but also) enforcing DS, and I have always viewed a revert as simply a revert when enforcing 1RR. I think it would defeat the potency of 1RR to have, for example, the following scenario: editor1 reverts content added by editor2. A few hours later editor3 adds different content — is editor1 allowed to revert this, as well? To be able to revert twice? El_C 16:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they're reverting back to the same revision, yes it is also a 1RR violation. This is how ANEW usually works. – bradv🍁 16:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So they can only revert new material that was added without a history? Another editor can come along and revert that revert as long as they haven't reverted something else? Atsme Talk 📧 16:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the restrictions on this particular page, yes, each editor gets one revert. That's because this particular page uses "Enforced BRD" rather than "Consensus required", so anyone can restore contested material except those who have previously added it in the past 24 hours. The "Consensus required" sanction would force the discussion to conclude before it could be restored, by anyone. – bradv🍁 16:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, revisions may evolve, but there would still be two individual reverts on the book, regardless. But the heart of the matter is whether 1RR should reflect 3RR, or be less strict. I think they ought to be equally strict. El_C 16:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings the discussion back to my original question - how does that process benefit the project when the material being added back violates PAGs, but the number of editors available to game the system are skewed in favor of adding it back? Atsme Talk 📧 16:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't strike me as a fair question – clearly you think the content is inappropriate, but others don't. Who decides whether it violates PAGs? Who decides who is gaming the system? – bradv🍁 16:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fair question because you just confirmed that we need consensus to decide what is appropriate and the 1RR DS that you described prevents that from happening. Do you see my point? Atsme Talk 📧 17:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my first reply to you, the purpose of 1RR is to force discussion on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. You can work it out on the talk page. – bradv🍁 17:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds good in theory, Brad, but that isn't what happens at controversial articles. When a small group "controls" an article, they don't have to discuss it - that's a fact - and therein lies the problem I've been trying to relay. I've made my point and all I can do now is hope you will give it a bit more thought because what we're dealing with in the trenches is not fun and it's not good for the project when you read the criticisms about WP in the media. It would be nice if Awilley weighed in here, too, since he has been in the trenches, and is close enough to it to understand it from a hands-on perspective. I vaguely recall reading something from DGG about DS and how they apply so maybe he can contribute as well. I think the dilemma El C, Mr Ernie and myself have described are closer to the reality that we experience - editors and admins alike - and why so many don't want anything to do with controversial articles. Burn-out comes quickly to volunteers who are just trying to get the article right but not so quickly when an editor has more at stake. Fewer eyes/editors working on controversial articles are not necessarily a good thing. Thank you for your input, and happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 17:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
there is no fair way to apply our customary edit restrictions without giving a first mover or second mover advantage The effect is much stronger with DS, because a removal on insertion that strikes any of the 500 active admins as improper can be changed without a long discussion. There are repeated topic questions in WP where a small majority is able to dictate content, by forcing an appearance of consensus. A true consensus is a wording or inclusion or deletion that every good-faith editor on either side thinks is fair enough to live with. They don't have to prefer it, they just have to accept it. I'll use myself for an example: The consensus at the schools RfC was interpreted in a way I thought profoundly wrong--I for a few weeks said I would fight every AfD until people realized it was wrong, but after month or two I decided I could live with it. It just affect inclusion, not NPOV. The consensus at some discussions in American Politics have been so wrong as to destroy NPOV, but those supporting one side (which in this case happens to consist of people whose politics I very much agree with in Real Life) is so determined that it isn't practical to fight it. (At least, not practical for me, working as I do, to fight it; all I can do is hide from the issue.) DS was originally instituted to prevent one or two determined admins from forming a ring to prevent blocking of a friend, and it has ending the sort of unblockable editors that were prevalent at the time. It has now reached the opposite direction, and permits one or two determined admins to force blocking of an opponent. The problem isn't WP, but the polarization of some real issues, which has led some people here to conclude that some views are so dangerous that they cannot be permitted in WP--at least not without conspicuous content warnings. What NPOV means is that we do not do that, but some people at WP no longer consider NPOV the highest value, but rather their own deeply felt POVs. The first and clearest and simplest step is to remove DS from the repertoire, as having outlived its usefulness. Many people will still prefer not to discuss AP on WP, but enough additional people will be willing that there's a chance a true consensus can form. I'm prepared to admit there may be situations that actually do call for direct action, but if we ever reach that point, those wishing to participate in it should do so outside WP. The basic principle remains, that WP should not be used for advocacy. At some demonstrations in my neighborhood in Brooklyn this summer, had I been 50 years younger I might have been out on the streets, but I wouldn't try to bring the streets into WP. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hazy times, for sure. El_C 20:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Responding to pings...let me see if I understand this.
  • Valjean added new material [1]
  • Mr Ernie reverted [2]
  • SPECIFICO restored [3]
  • PackMecEng removed [4]
  • My very best wishes restored [5]
  • Atsme removed [6]
  • Volunteer Marek restored [7]
Valjean started the talk page discussion, and all of the editors named above participated in that discussion except SPECIFICO and Volunteer Marek. All the editors used reasonable edit summaries referencing policy or the talk page, although Volunteer Marek's summary "this IS a reliable source and it's properly attributed" was a straw man that didn't address the concerns expressed in previous edit summaries (notably WP:UNDUE). Also, at least 3 additional editors have chimed in on the talk page (MrX, Objective3000, JzG/Guy) all supporting the inclusion of the new text. So by my count that makes 7 supporting the text (Valjean, SPECIFICO, MVBW, VolunteerM, MrX, O3000, JzG) and 3 opposing (Mr Ernie, PackME, Atsme). Nobody has reverted anything more than once (yay), but the content has been through 3 full revert cycles (frown). Brownie points to Valjean for immediately starting the talk page discussion and to PME for attempting a compromise edit. Frownie points to Volunteer Marek for further extending a tag-team edit war with a drive-by revert.
Responding to a couple of comments above: Bradv said, "the purpose of 1RR is to force discussion on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries." I would note that regular 1RR itself does not actually force talkpage discussion. It just slows things down (as Bradv noted elsewhere). The BRD sanction further encourages, but still doesn't force discussion, by making people discuss before making their second revert (even if that second revert is days after their first revert). The "consensus required" sanction goes further, requiring a discussion before any revert, partial revert, or any edit similar to the original "challenged" edit can be made. But in a case like this the end result of all 3 sanctions is the same...whenever you have twice as many people supporting as opposing something, the majority eventually wins out and the content ends up in the article. The difference is in how long it took to get there and how much discussion was required.
If people are asking to go back to widespread application of the "consensus required" rule, I would suggest that before doing that we try applying the rule to individual editors instead of entire articles. If editors like User:Volunteer Marek are abusing the system with tag-team edit wars and not following the spirit of BRD, then hit them with individual "consensus required" sanctions instead of punishing everybody in the topic area. ~Awilley (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I object and resent the accusation that I am “tag teaming” or “abusing the system”. I saw a bad edit and I undid it (it’s also false to say that my ES was a straw man). All you’re seeing here is multiple editors disagreeing with one editor. If anything that means that editor is making edits against consensus, not that the others are “tag teaming”. Please don’t cast WP:ASPERSIONS. If there’s any “gaming” going in here it ain’t by me. Volunteer Marek 02:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same reaction as VM, but I just happened to see it a short time before he did. It is often the case that a single editor makes a "bad", revert, i.e. for no valid reason, and that when another editor undoes that the matter is resolved. After a number of editors joined Ernie on the talk page, it became clear that was not the situation. But a quick reinstatement of an invalid revert is the quickest and best resolution more often than not. In this case, the length of the article was the edit summary for the removal of a notable expert's comment. That is not, on its face, a valid reason to remove this particular content. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem if consensus turns out to be against what I think is best. What I have a problem with is regular, experienced editors ignoring ONUS etc. to simply revert because they say "this should be in." The process was not followed, starting with SPECIFICO's restoration. There have to be sanctions or enforcement if anything is to change. These editors know the rules very well (you can see them deploy them elsewhere). Valjean should be commended for following the process, which is starting to show a consensus. That is how it should work. The deeper issues with the article still need to be resolved. ONUS is black letter policy, and the BRD guidance should be followed. If it isn't, should there be more regular sanctions in the very difficult AP space? That is for the admins to decide. Thank you to those who have participated in this discussion, as I think it is helping to move things forward. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know Volunteer Marek disagrees with this, but when it comes to contentious articles especially, I think that, per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante version is the version that should be displaying while the dispute remains unresolved. El_C 20:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly disagree with the contention that the “status quo” version should be privileged. There is no logical reason to assume that it is better and privileging it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, where the whole point is to IMPROVE articles. If a “status quo” version is sub par and violates content policy then it is sub par and violates policy, end of story. Volunteer Marek 02:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the assertion about whether it is subpar is itself in dispute, then, yes, we go with the status quo ante version while the matter is being discussed. Free-for-alls are strongly discouraged. El_C 02:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we stick to the four corners of the text of ONUS, it is telling us only that among the set of all verified statements relating to any article, the article will incorporate only the subset that editors agree conforms to NPOV, speicifically DUE WP:WEIGHT. ONUS is not about a general policy that we elevate pre-existing content. That issue is discussed in the essay WP:QUO, but it is a separate issue. In some high quality articles, existing content reflects longstanding sources and the partipation of a large number of editors over an extended period. In others, either on controversial topics such as American Politics or Gender, or -- as at Aziz Ansari -- both of those, the existing text is begging for improvement. While all sourcing and content policies must be followed, old versions are likely to be improved and it is false to cite ONUS as a mechanism to freeze whatever happened to exist before the improvement. If no improvement is needed, that should be addressed on the substance of the sources and article text. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember that in the beginning there was nothing, and then there was an encyclopedia. This did not happen by elevating the status quo over bold edits. – bradv🍁 16:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we are here discussing the misrepresentation of ONUS -- which actually is in favor of reworking text to sort out DUE WEIGHT from the much larger volume of facts and statements. ONUS is not a policy of freezing articles. And we don't know what would have evolved had American Politics, Gamergate, etc. been at play in the mid-2000's. We might have Dick Cheney on Mt. Rushmore. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe we are agreed. The big picture of how to write an encyclopedia (or indeed, how to build a society) is important, and the overall trend has to be an upward one. It is easier to destroy than to create, so our systems and policies need to be biased toward continuous improvement. Therefore, crying ONUS at every change is detrimental to the project, and the burden is properly on all editors to work together to find compromise in order to improve the encyclopedia. The fact is, many of our articles are complete crap, and if ONUS prevents people from improving them it must be ignored. – bradv🍁 16:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that if disputed changes are made to text which has explicit or implicit consensus those contentious changes should not remain in place through a discussion and RFC process that could extend for over a month. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if it's a legitimate dispute and not just one or two editors who don't like a new development. – bradv🍁 16:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bradv&oldid=976883835"