Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2018/August
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Edit warring. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Exemption for upholding BRD?
I think there really ought to be a EW exemption for upholding the conditions of WP:BRD, such as when one editor makes a change, another reverts, inviting discussion on the talk page, and the initial editor continues to revert to their preferred version instead of leaving the article in the status quo ante during the discussion. As of now, an editor who attempts to keep the page in the status quo version is subject to having a weaponized WP:EWN used against them. This seems not only unfair, but unhelpful to as encyclopedia based on consensus discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Good faith but premature. Before we could elevate BRD to an exemption in this policy, BRD would have to morph from essay to policy in its own right. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- As much as I believe that BRD ought to be upgraded to a policy, I don't believe that what you suiggest is necessarily the case. The purpose of the exceptions is not just to uphold policy (which is already one of the exceptions), but to help editors to improve the encyclopedia. We're a project based on consensus, and discussion is a necessary part of the process of reaching consensus -- but consensus means nothing if random changes can't be undone to restore the staus quo.If everyone involved is (hopefully) going to agree to abide by the eventual consensus of editors, then the only question is which version of the article should be maintained while consensus is being established. The only one which makes any sense is the status quo version, because it is the version that represents prior consensus, whether actual or de facto. The changed version represents only one editor's opinion, and therefore does not have the weight of the previous versions.Those who wish to ignore BRD and take matters into their own hands are fond of tarring BRD-upholding editors with charges of exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP behavior, but it's not "owning" an article to wish it to stay as it was until editors decide on the talk page which course should be taken, it is, in fact, the best conservative choice. If the changing editor is correct, then consensus will likely support their version, so all they need to do is wait, taking part in the consensus discussion in the meantime. When that is reached, the article will be changed (or not, depending), and there is no longer any dispute. Not following BRD prolongs the dispute, and removes it from the realm of consensus determination, which is more akin to "ownership" then is preserving the status quo while discussions are talking place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- In reply to "As much as I believe that BRD ought to be upgraded to a policy, I don't believe that what you suiggest is necessarily the case." Of course it isn't technically required to elevate BRD to a policy first. We could do exactly what you suggest. In practice, however, both approaches have identical outcomes. I'm opposed to backdoor policy development when straight-forward policy proposals do not pass. That said, I agree with the gist of your comments here, and I do wish we could figure out how to make BRD policy. I wonder if we'ver ever tried something like that on a trial basis? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Do you mean making BRD into policy on a trial basis? I don't recall that being done before, but since it would take an RfC to do that, wouldn't it be better just to have the RfC to make it a policy? Or do you think that an end-date would make more people inclined to support the proposition? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for figuring out what I meant to say. Yes to all of that. Maybe an expiration date in the proposal would gain support from some weak "no" not-votes. but I'm not sufficiently interested or confident to pursue it, though I'd support someone else's effort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I'll think about that. I've thought for quite a long time that BRD needed to be upgraded to policy, and have considered at various times mounting another RfC to try to do so, but the process is so laborious and enervating that I keep putting it off. Perhaps your idea would be a good reason to try, but I'll have to mull it over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for figuring out what I meant to say. Yes to all of that. Maybe an expiration date in the proposal would gain support from some weak "no" not-votes. but I'm not sufficiently interested or confident to pursue it, though I'd support someone else's effort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Do you mean making BRD into policy on a trial basis? I don't recall that being done before, but since it would take an RfC to do that, wouldn't it be better just to have the RfC to make it a policy? Or do you think that an end-date would make more people inclined to support the proposition? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- In reply to "As much as I believe that BRD ought to be upgraded to a policy, I don't believe that what you suiggest is necessarily the case." Of course it isn't technically required to elevate BRD to a policy first. We could do exactly what you suggest. In practice, however, both approaches have identical outcomes. I'm opposed to backdoor policy development when straight-forward policy proposals do not pass. That said, I agree with the gist of your comments here, and I do wish we could figure out how to make BRD policy. I wonder if we'ver ever tried something like that on a trial basis? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- As much as I believe that BRD ought to be upgraded to a policy, I don't believe that what you suiggest is necessarily the case. The purpose of the exceptions is not just to uphold policy (which is already one of the exceptions), but to help editors to improve the encyclopedia. We're a project based on consensus, and discussion is a necessary part of the process of reaching consensus -- but consensus means nothing if random changes can't be undone to restore the staus quo.If everyone involved is (hopefully) going to agree to abide by the eventual consensus of editors, then the only question is which version of the article should be maintained while consensus is being established. The only one which makes any sense is the status quo version, because it is the version that represents prior consensus, whether actual or de facto. The changed version represents only one editor's opinion, and therefore does not have the weight of the previous versions.Those who wish to ignore BRD and take matters into their own hands are fond of tarring BRD-upholding editors with charges of exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP behavior, but it's not "owning" an article to wish it to stay as it was until editors decide on the talk page which course should be taken, it is, in fact, the best conservative choice. If the changing editor is correct, then consensus will likely support their version, so all they need to do is wait, taking part in the consensus discussion in the meantime. When that is reached, the article will be changed (or not, depending), and there is no longer any dispute. Not following BRD prolongs the dispute, and removes it from the realm of consensus determination, which is more akin to "ownership" then is preserving the status quo while discussions are talking place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- "BRD is never a reason for reverting." You are quite literally claiming whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. This is not what reverting is for. Reverting is for removing detrimental changes to the article. If a change follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for example placing an image in accordance to MOS or placing a tag in accordance to an RfC, you cannot revert it simply to "uphold BRD". This is explicitly noted in the BRD essay itself, and in the Wikipedia policy WP:OWN. Bright☀ 18:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just another example of BrightR using my contribution list to follow me around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just to point out that Wikipedia:Communication is required already exists and is a supplement to an existing policy. It instructs to use the BRD framework so BRD is a de facto policy already. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not so, I'm afraid. Sure it exists, but it has about the same teeth as an essay. Pages claiming to be policy supplements are classed as informational/howto pages and "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status..." see WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- The truth is that supplements and essays are not necessary. Policies like Wikipedia:Consensus already explains everything the "communication" supplement supposedly clarifies. Wikipedia does not need to add slipshod wording to policy, it needs to optimize its existing policies and guidelines for correctness, brevity, and clarity. Bright☀ 21:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced material
Just to be on the safe side, I wanted to ask if reverting unsourced material in BLPs exempted from 3RR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqib (talk • contribs)
- Hard to say without looking at the specific example NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @NewsAndEventsGuy: A while ago I made more than 3 reverts on Najeeb Haroon in an hour to remove unsourced promotional material. --Saqib (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- As policy says, this exception can be controversial. I might ask at the WP:BLPN before reverting again. Have you tried getting the other ed to discuss per WP:BRD? If the other ed ignores you see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and consider making a complaint for a block of the ed and maybe page protection. Also even if the source were good, the text itself looks WP:POV to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @NewsAndEventsGuy: As I said the IP cited no source initially. I left him numerous warnings on the talk page (User talk:119.160.117.95) but no response. Later xe cited a blog post as a source. Blog posts are generally unreliable so I reverted him again. --Saqib (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Good luck I've done all I can/am willing here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @NewsAndEventsGuy: As I said the IP cited no source initially. I left him numerous warnings on the talk page (User talk:119.160.117.95) but no response. Later xe cited a blog post as a source. Blog posts are generally unreliable so I reverted him again. --Saqib (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- As policy says, this exception can be controversial. I might ask at the WP:BLPN before reverting again. Have you tried getting the other ed to discuss per WP:BRD? If the other ed ignores you see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and consider making a complaint for a block of the ed and maybe page protection. Also even if the source were good, the text itself looks WP:POV to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @NewsAndEventsGuy: A while ago I made more than 3 reverts on Najeeb Haroon in an hour to remove unsourced promotional material. --Saqib (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)