Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

Proposal re.: Wording change needed to stop forbidding copying of properly licensed free content

This MediaWiki message, found at the bottom of each of the zillion edit pages our editors use, needs changing! :

Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission.

However, it's often perfectly fine to copy and paste content from copyrighted websites. Nearly all of our own websites' content is copyrighted. Much essential Wikipedia content comes from copyrighted websites that license their copyrighted work. The CC-BY-SA 3.0 License itself was copied from the copyrighted website http://creativecommons.org! The improper instruction of the first half of the sentence, "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites" is not rectified by the second half. In this discussion in a less-trafficked forum, several alternatives were considered.

So, I now propose we go with the following (Credit to Richardguk for coming up with this revision and listing some pros and cons.)

Do not copy and paste from other websites unless permitted by Wikipedia copyright policy.

Advantages: brief, comprehensive. "Please" is unnecessary when warning people not to break the law.

Disadvantages: unspecific, no reference to copy-pasting from sources other than websites, no explanation of public domain and other exemptions. But anyone relying on public domain exemptions can reasonably be expected to have enough diligence to check the detailed rules.

For the sake of brevity, the text is deliberately ambiguous about who must have "permitted". This is intended to combine the notion of the source site permitting copying and the notion of Wikipedia policy permitting pasting.

"Copyrighted websites" is changed to "other webites" because many casual users don't know that nearly all websites are copyrighted, but they are so it is safer and simpler to cover everywhere – except Wikipedia itself.

The important thing here is to firmly deter potential abusers, briefly guide casual users, and usefully steer diligent users.

Thoughts? Let's get this fixed! --Elvey (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that wording.

"Please" isn't redundant, we are asking editors to behave in a way that helps the project stay within US law. That doesn't mean each and every editor worldwide is under compulsion of that law.
Permission to copy can only come from the copyright holder, by definition. A website is not a legal person, so while it may document such permission it certainly doesn't grant it.
Wikipedia policy guides the behaviour of editors to help keep the project legal, but can't grant such permission either.
Either "copyrighted websites" or "other websites" is improperly narrow, missing all manner of offline sources. The problem behaviour is the insertion of copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder, irrespective of the mechanism of insertion or the medium of the source. It is just as bad (and in some ways more problematic) to type in verbatim text from a printed work.

LeadSongDog come howl! 13:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, precisely speaking, there seldom or never such a thing as a "copyrighted website", it is the material within it that is/may be copyrighted. (?) North8000 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly ever is a website under just one copyright, usually there are a great many for different parts of the site.

The website itself is not the publisher or owner of the site either. This site, en.wikipedia.org is not the Wikimedia Foundation which publishes it, and its content copyrights are held in very small chunks by millions of contributors, mostly under pseudonyms recorded in page histories. Similarly, NYTimes.com is not The New York Times Company, but in any case much of its content originates with other papers, distributed by wire agencies such as the Associated Press and Reuters. It is, for all practical purposes, impossible to be certain who owns the copyright to something we read whether it is on a website or on dead trees. The responsible action, then, is to entirely refrain from verbatim copying unless we know the source is in the public domain. Usually that knowledge is by dint of its age. So if we were to revise the line, I'd suggest simply "Please do not add copied content unless it is in the public domain." (The preceding post is copyright LeadSongDog, licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0) LeadSongDog come howl! 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Unsorted Error: Invalid RfC category specified: |Policy

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I have to agree with the original poster. So often I see people here on Wikipedia using "copyrighted" to mean "copyrighted and not available under a license that is compatible with our own license" — we need to remember that copyright is the only thing that makes our licenses at all binding. Of course, if we added "without permission" after "copyrighted websites", I'd be happy with that, because a Wikipedia-compatible license is precisely the kind of permission that we need. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same here; what Nyttend said. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about avoiding to frame the issue as "public domain" vs. "copyrighted", which is somewhat misleading. But I'm not quite happy about the proposed alternative either – we need something very simple, something that gets just the central message across to the clueless user, and without the reader having to first follow a link to the extremely confusing WP:Copyrights page. For the purpose of simplicity, I would think that even a slight amount of oversimplification is a reasonable price to pay. Perhaps something along the lines of "Do not copy text from elsewhere, unless it has been released under a free license". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Reference Menace

I am unsure of what appropriate policies there are to deal with this or if more are needed. As wikipedia mautures the number of other web sources that draws from its information increases. Though I wish to avoid exmaples to avoid diverting the discussion to specific examples, there seems to be both a risk and examples of the following:..

Dubious or incorrect information is added.
This is not picked up on.
Sufficient time passes for other sources to use this information.
Other editors add these as sources.
An editor wishing to correct the original misinfomration faces an edit war with others who use the "sources" as evidence.

Thoughts please? Dainamo (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of why we must not only have sources, but reliable sources. If a source is getting info from Wikipedia, it doesn't qualify as an RS.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that simple, incorrect information originating from wikipedia has been published in respected newspapers and even scientific publications (see the "glucojasinogen" entry in wp:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia). It is a recognized problem, but we can do very little about it from our end. The problem is with journalists not checking their facts. See also this comic. Yoenit (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not that simple. But it is a serous problem at times. Two weeks ago I had a loooong discussion with a user who insisted that although a website said some of its information was from Wikipedia, given that we do not know which parts came from Wikipedia, it could be considered WP:RS! Eventually after wasting a few hours of my life someone else shot that argument down. But there needs to be "clear policy" that as soon as a website says its content is Wikipedia-based then it is a no-no as a source. How can that get formed as a more clear statement? History2007 (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think wp:CIRCULAR is fine, what is your problem with it? Yoenit (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make it clear that if a website uses "any" Wikipedia information to compile an article of its own, then the entire website is useless as a source? The other user's argument was that some of it is Wikipedia, some is not and so it has been compiled from multiple sources and it can be used. So the "one bullet, the website is dead" argument should be clarified there. It should probably say: "if a website uses any Wikipedia information, that usage alone will automatically disqualify the website as a source for Wikipedia". That is what I would like to see stated clearly. I will suggest it there anyway. History2007 (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't tell which parts are from Wikipedia and which are from other sources (and by "tell" I mean, the source clearly identifies which material comes from which source), then the source is not reliable. It's not so much that the whole source is unreliable, rather that we cannot reliably tell which parts are and which aren't. Of course, if the source doesn't even attribute Wikipedia and it's a generally reliable publisher, then (as we cannot prove either way) there is little we can do except local consensus not to use it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to requests for adminship

I proposed a change to this guide on the Talk page. However, only one other editor (the author of the text) is discussing the proposal - and probably only because I left a note on his Talk page. He and I have reached an impasse in our discussion, and it would be helpful if others (admins and non-admins) would comment. The discussion is here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Require well-formed code in articles?

I was thinking because MediaWiki parses pages into XHTML by default that we should encourage users to write wikicode that (if it includes HTML syntax) is for the most part well-formed. That is:

Always use escape sequences for & < >
Close and nest tags properly (e.g. <br/> not <br>)
Does not contain certain characters

This is just to lighten server load. Not sure about this one myself. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really make a difference. The MediaWiki code cleans up HTML anyway, primarily because it's a security threat. Beyond that, there's the whole WP:PERFORMANCE mindset (ie.: "you, as a user, should not worry about site performance."). If this kind of thing ever becomes a significant issue then we can talk about what may need to be done with the ops folks. There are good reasons to avoid all sorts of xHTML style markup (and especially CSS) in wikitext, for usability reasons, though. It's usually a good idea to replace xHTML stuff with templates, for instance. That's a bit of a different subject, though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The general user can not be expected to think about and analyze performance issues. Many users at large are historians, artists etc. and not programmer types. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki actually uses HTML Tidy to clean up HTML, including converting breaks. HTML Tidy does not work in MediaWiki interface pages, where an incorrect break can cause issues. HTML Tidy also induces problems, many of which have a workaround applied. We are switching to HTML5 (coming real soon) which supports both <br> and <br />. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Wait, we're switching to HTML5? Which reminds me, I had a suggestion for an HTML5/AJAX feature to be used in the editing UI (See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Use AJAX for live editing). 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the backend which translates Wikicode into HTML is switching to HTML5. We won't have access to those features directly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cite templates insert current date

When citing in an article, I exclusively use the "reference" icon and/orcite templates on the edit toolbar. When you select "Insert current date", on the citation templates, they insert the European style of dating. This gives the article a consistent style of dating on the references. It never occured to me before today that it should be otherwise, especially when you sign a talk page that also dates in the European style. As soon as Grace Towns Hamilton appeared on the Main page as a DYK today, there was a good-faith edit that switched around some - but not all - of the citation access dates to the American style. The editor was using Template:Use mdy dates I reversed it back, because the Notes section was then inconsistent on the access dates. I have noticed once or twice before (and can't remember the editor) someone coming in behind me doing scatter-shot changes to the date style in the article. You can find a conversation about today's Here. This is not about any specific editor, as far as I am concerned. This is about how future articles are written. If we use the citation templates, we're going to get the European style dates. Nobody can force any editor to sit there and manually override the cite templates on every citation, especially with multitudes of editors not knowing they're supposed to override the automation of it. And while today's edit was in good faith, the hit-and-miss of it messed up the consistency of the access dates on the inline citations. I think this is an inconsistency that should be reconciled to avoid future confusion. And just as a post thought, I used to manually insert the American style dates into the citation, but back then some other editor came along and reversed my American style to insert European style. Maile66 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reversal has now been reversed by a different editor. Wikipedia needs to get itself together on this issue.Maile66 (talk)

But, we are "together". See: MOS:DATEUNIFY. I don't understand what the problem is.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, because I already went to that. What I'm saying - is that if the citation date style and the body text date style are to be the same, then the citation templates should not have "insert date" at all - but maybe force the editor to type in a date. The insert style is going to insert the European version. That's the inconsistency.Maile66 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go talk to the people who are maintaining that tool? What buttons people put on their tools, and how they're implemented, aren't really a Wikipedia policy issue (and, incidentally, there was still at least one month d, year formatted reference dates in the version you reverted too...).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To set the date style, see Wikipedia:refToolbar 2.0#Automatic date insertion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that would use the same date style on all articles, unless you go back and change it, right? Then it's the same problem, just a different style causing it. However, I don't agree that it's necessary to remove the option entirely to address this. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask the refToolbar folks to add an option, but response has been slow. You can try ProveIt GT which works in a similar manner— I can't remember how the date works. I use the script User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to clean up dates in a consistent style. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that there is any rule that the dates in the citations and the dates in the article body need to match each other. The rule is that dates in the citations must match the dates in other citations, and that dates in the article text need to match the dates in other parts of the article text (except for direct quotations), but the dates in the citations do not need to match the dates in the article text. You may therefore use mmddyyyy in the article and ddmmyyyy in the citations, if that's what you want to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting notability of an event

Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction."

Guidelines say:

WP:PERSISTENCE: "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance."

But:

Some articles, dispite coverage only lasting a few months, get lots of page views.

Typical examples:

UFC 108 (2010) gets 6,000 hits per month: http://stats-classic.grok.se/en/201204/UFC_108
UFC 135 (2011) gets 16,000 hits per month: http://stats-classic.grok.se/en/201204/UFC_135

I am really on the fence on this one. Can many page views be considered an indication of notability? Should/could this criterion be in the guidelines? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We specifically disregard pageviews in determining notability. Notability and persistence is based on sourcing, and that's all. And even if there's only a couple months of notable sourcing, that's usually acceptable for our notability standards. Events that only appear in the paper for a day or two are the type we disregard as non-persistent. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- We don't require persistence for a lot of other things. I'm much more on the side that if it got massive coverage, it's probably notable. Even if that coverage was fairly brief. Look at all the Dr. Who episodes (for example). I don't think there is a massive amount of long-term coverage there. But there was a lot of coverage at the time, so we have the articles. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Episodes of popular tv shows are persistent since they can be re-aired and re-experienced, and hence have long term coverage. The same applies to the UFC events above as (I believe) they are redistributed to home video, hence having persistence there. Compare that to an average baseball game - widely covered the day afterwards but unless it had a major impact (say, a perfect game) that's all you hear of it. That's the persistence issue that we're looking for. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although fairly brief, UFC 135 did get pretty good coverage at the time, but now such articles are vulnerable to AfD due to lack of persistent coverage, despite continuing page hits. I really don't know what to think anymore. Why are page hits disregarded? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because notability is a scholarly aspect - what reliable sources talk about a topic. Do note that if we pass the persistence test at the short term, then we presume the topic remains notable - notability is not temporary. It's just that you have to show that the topic wasn't a flash in the pan. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These MMA events (not just UFC) get coverage in the lead up from the MMA specialist sources, normally in the form of confirming who is going to appear, the event happens, the following day the main stream media report the results and then there is nothing. Much like football games (of any code) or MLB or NBA games. Most of the MMA event articles contain prose only relating to the lead up to the event in a "background" section and then just a copy of the results with no actual analysis of the event. A comparable example from the world of TV would be America's Next Top Model, we don't have articles on every episode but on the series as a whole America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18, each episode would probably pass WP:GNG given coverage in reality centric sources but the coverage is just the routine stuff these types of sources give to TV shows. Mt king^(edits) 04:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Mtking. I came here to get some neutral views on the page hits matter. I referred to UFC events as a case in point. Please don't use this thread to sway opinion. I want to hear from others. This is not the place to continue this effort to delete UFC event articles. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...Because notability is a scholarly aspect...wasn't a flash in the pan." That makes good sense. What about a month of coverage after an event? Is there a rule of thumb? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. It's a "I know it when I see it" aspect. It usually depends on the type of coverage, as if the topic is still getting coverage but only in primary sourcing, that's probably not as good an indicator as if it was secondary sourcing. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Many thanks for the input. It's been educational indeed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artist interpretations used as illustrations of historical figures

I'm sure that this has come up before, but please indulge me.

This image is used in the main infobox for the article on Shen Kuo. It is a modern artist's sketch of a modern statue. I perceive this as being an interpretation of guesswork (as, unless I'm missing something, the modern statue's sculptor would have no idea what Shen Guo actually looked like), but that's besides the point. Why are we using a non-notable artist's sketch in an article at all? It strikes me as being an OR issue, and therefore being bad practice, but I couldn't find any policy on the matter, and being that the article is an FA, clearly other people have seen the image before and not taken issue.

Assistance or guideance would be welcome.

Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any idea of the date of the bust/statue? If it still exists, and the bust is out of copyright, a free picture can be taken of it. If it is the case that the bust is still under copyright, I am definitely not thrilled with using a sketch. That's both OR issues and the derivative work aspect. I'm surprised there is not freely available imagery otherwise. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is File:Beijing Ancient Observatory 20090715-19.jpg, which might be the source, and it looks covered by FOP. I could upload a crop and then do a replacement, but that dosen't answer the underlying policy questions, which I'd like to know before I make any edits. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing we have to a policy on this is probably WP:PERTINENCE, in particular the following sentence "Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." Yoenit (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does that work for or against this? I'm not trying to be dense, I'm just really confused here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That pic on commons is what we should be using. China has freedom of panorama laws, meaning that as long as that's installed in a public area, along with a few other credits required in the image descript. While this means the sketch is ok, there's zero reason to use it over the free photo. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible violation of wp terms of use-need to talk to someone

Hello! I'd like to discuss a case of possible violation of the Wikipedia terms of use. Since it is complex and may be a borderline case, I'd like to interact with a Wikipedian who is knowledgeable in policy issues via my talk page. Thank you! Cristixav (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Challenge To The Idea Of Notability In Music

I think your criteria of what's important in music is wrong and is too heavily dependent on commercial considerations.

I think there should be space for musicians that have created a body of work that's already on MusicBrainz perhaps. I strongly feel that less financially successful... less famous... but serious musicians, like my uncle 'Rockie Charlies Merrick', President of Soul... who was known globally...but on a small scale for his live appearances over 40 years... that his recorded work and the work of other serious musicians like him... should be searchable and preserved.

I feel working musicians with verifiable bodies of work should be able to catalogue their works in the Wiki system so they're not lost to future interested persons/researchers.

In my uncle's case, he built up a significant following over 40 years in the industry. I feel that Wiki is missing out on the chance to preserve important things in the interest of the easy way to make a music catalogue. How is it that a teen-ager who did nothing more than sing to a backing track quite badly could be 'notable' but he isn't?

This was him

I rediscovered his work last year during a song-a-day-for-a-year project that I successfully completed. I'm here in this discussion room today because I had intended to share my experiences and what I'd learned after spending all of 2011 writing songs everyday and exploring social media from the point-of-view of a novice... learning by doing. Although I studied Music in university, I knew nothing of how to the music industry actually functions, nor did I have experience in social media or anything remotely IT related.

A technical writer that I know wrote a summation of my work and an editor friend of mine was going to submit it on my behalf, when I decided I didn't want to do it that way. My project was non-commercial and after reading your guidelines, I felt unsure of myself. I felt that according to Wiki, I needed to sell lots of copies of my music be notable, but my project wasn't the least bit commercial at the time. And now, regardless of what happens once the songs are remixed and sold in albums or placed by publishing companies, I can't help but feel there's something wrong with the value placed on money and awards.

This is me

In my travels, I've discovered world music that may never be cash-cows for the corporate entities which dominate the music industry and most 'significant' music charts. I re-discovered the music of my uncle, who was overlooked for the 'big-time' in his life, but made some incredible Blues music that should not be lost.

There can still be strict guidelines on self promotion, but I feel there's something wrong with the way you judge what's important and what's not important in music.

I told my friend that I would find it hurtful, after studying music to the post-graduate level... to have my work rejected on it's own merit, but to have these same songs accepted once I or someone acting on my behalf sold enough copies of some of them. That's how your system looks to me... closed to anyone that hasn't sold enough copies of their work or won an award that's mainly (not always) based on how many units were sold.

I know this seems like a personal question, but since music is my life, I guess is personal. I think any owner of original copyrighted material should be able to catalogue the facts about their work and connect their Wiki page as composer/songwriter...to their MusicBrainz page. Maybe even sync the two pages with updates?

I just wonder if you might not be able to find a better and more fair way to make musical works searchable regardless of the commercial side of things.

My name is Rhonda Merrick and I wrote this (I admit...long) email to say that I disagree with the way the Wiki community seems to decide what's important and what isn't in music. I'm asking you as a community to find a more fair way to be inclusive rather than exclusionary based on commercial success. I welcome ideas and discussion on this issue.

Thank you. Rhondamerrick (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhondamerrick (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the poster may not understand how major of a role "coverage in sources" carries both at the music notability guideline, and in the other route (wp:notability) available, I think that the message asking for self-review is a good one relative to the other parts of the music SNG. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)The notability guidelines for music are essentially an offshoot of the main notability guideline - that is to say, if something has been covered in other sources, we should probably host an article about it. The reason the music guidelines focus largely on commercial success is because commercial success gets written about elsewhere; if an artist has created a platinum-selling album or charted highly on a country's national chart, chances are very good that they have received coverage in reliable sources for doing so. At the end of the day, Wikipedia reports on what other sources say; to do otherwise would be original research. To take your uncle as an example; he may not have been as famous as Justin Bieber, but if people out there have written about him (and that Nola.com source is a good start), we can write an article about him too. Feel free to start one; it looks to me as if there are plenty of sources to provide material. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do however, Strongly Oppose the suggestion that musicians be encouraged to edit their own articles. MusicBrainz, whilst a good idea, is user-generated content and thus not suitable as a source - so why link it? - and suggesting they link to other pages about themselves is just an invitation for floods of linkspam. For every Rockie Charles, there's a spotty teenager with a record deck in his bedroom, who's determined to make a Wikipedia page on his alias "DJ Wickedfly Pixieknuckles" to promote his latest mixtape. That is not what we're here for. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda: The Music notability guideline is supposed to be subserviant to general notability policy. If your uncle doesn't meet the music notability guideline, then maybe he meets general notability policy? The fact that a newspaper wrote a full-length article about him, Rockie Charles, the 'President of Soul,' dies at age 67, suggests that he may be notable. Do you have any other newspaper articles about your uncle? Were any books (not self-published) written about him or covered him? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that newspaper article says that Jeff Hannusch interviewed Rockie Charles for his book, "The Soul of New Orleans". If Rockie Charles is covered in that book, that's evidence that he might meet the general notability policy. I also found another newspaper article about him: Rockie Charles, 'President of Soul,' shines in the Blues Tent A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think A Quest For Knowledge's point regarding the General Notability Guidelines is very important and oft overlooked. So to emphasize, if a subject meets the General Notability Guidelines, the special notability guidelines do not matter, they exist primarily to provide advice on what subjects are likely to meet the general guidelines. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May sanctions that are actively in effect be removed from a user talk page

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages#May sanctions that are actively in effect be removed from a user talk page. Particularly, may an editor remove active block notices and community sanctions from thier talk page? Monty ₈₄₅ 17:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Template:Z48[reply]

Time to make WP:BRD policy?

There have been two cases recently that have troubled me, and I am sure I am not imagining the gradual erosion of consensus editing. I am not a particularly aggressive editor, but I seem to find myself being dragged into more and more edit wars over the last few months. As an example there was a case at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:71.239.128.44_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_31h.29 where I was threatened with a block for "tag-team" reverting. In that case, myself and three other editors reverted unsourced SPA edits against a consensus to the article. The problems were clearly discussed on the talk page but the SPA failed to address them; after semi-protection was turned down we continually reverted this editor (even after he was blocked and returned) but ended up being instructed not to make any more reverts to the article ourselves. I am not here to question the admin's interpretation of rules in this case, I freely admit I reverted a few times, but I wasn't really supplied with satisfactory guidance i.e. dispute resolution takes us to a consensus (which we have), it doesn't enforce it; I mean the SPA was reported and SemiP requested, and the situation just wasn't dealt with, which resulted in the continuous reverting. There has also been a more troubling case involving User:Armbrust, which resulted in a week long block and his retirement—I am actually pretty worried about him because he divulged very personal information which seems to indicate he is in a vulnerable state. He severely broke 3rr though, the admin was correct to block him, but in both my case and that of Armbrust we are ending up with situations where hard-working editors are facing blocks, and I am seeing this more and more with decent editors.

The main problem here is that editors are coming along with a total disregard for consensus editing, the defensive editor takes actions to protect the integrity of the article and both editors end up receiving a block. The net effect which we are seeing more and more of is that more productive editors are copping for blocks in trying to retain the integrity of the encyclopedia. It seems to me WP:BRD is a good ethos that if everyone was forced to follow, then Wikipedia would generally just be a nicer place to be. If BRD was a policy, we wouldn't have lost a brilliant editor like Armbrust. I'm quite happy to obtain a consensus for my edits, but similarly I don't like seeing my work trashed if I've spent an evening on it. Does anyone?

My proposal (or something to this effect) is to make BRD an active policy, applied to any type of edit that 3RR would apply to. BRD effectively dictates that you need a consensus to initiate changes to the articles. So if someone reverts you, then reverting the edit that reverts you should result in an automatic block. BRD insists that if someone reverts you then you should start a discussion on the talk page; a policy could add if the reverter doesn't respond in 24 hours then you are free to restore the edit, if they do and still challenge it then the policy would insist on a third opinion before you restore the edit. After effectively been barred from taking action to remove unsourced SPA edits from an article, and the loss of a great editor like Armbrust which will be severely detrimental to the Snooker Project (he designs and implements all our templates) I am becoming increasingly tired of pretty much entering a combat zone on virtually every article. I think enforcement of BRD as a policy would just make Wikipedia a more pleasant place to be. I think the bottom line is that people join because they like to contribute, and they leave because they hate to see their work trashed, so a move over to true "consensus" editing would be a good thing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved Editor - Regarding the IP incident, I ended up filing an AIV filing before the 3RR filing was processed, which resulted in a 31h block and appears to have settled the problem. In part this was because the last time I filed a 3RR request I was explicitly told by the closing admin that I could have gotten faster results by going through AIV. I don't think it was appropriate for Betty to receive a warning in this instance as multiple editors were reverting a single editor who was not engaging in dialog before reinstituting their contested edits. I reviewed the 3RR filing and I didn't see anything to suggest I had opened myself up to a possible block, but if so then I think it would have been appropriate if I'd been warned directly (i.e. on my Talk page) as well. It also would have been an act of good faith, and I think an argument could be made that no editor should face a 3RR-related block unless they have been explicitly warned beforehand.

I don't think I'd support making BRD a formal policy, but I certainly think that Betty was operating in good faith and certainly not alone, and this may be a case where either the particular clerk involved needs to be told that their actions were unwarranted, or 3RR handling should be reviwed so that we don't have editors operating in good faith and not unilaterally facing blocks for allegedly being disruptive by reverting a clearly disruptive and unilateral editor. Doniago (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the support Doniago, but ultimately the admin can only interpret policy as he sees it I guess, so I don't really think he should be put under the cosh for a judgment call, he didn't actually block anyone. If not enforcing BRD, I would like to see a better framework in which a consensus can easily be restored without putting editors in the block dock. Another recent case involved a newly minted editor attempting to split an FA rated article (without any discussion) which I reverted twice, and still managed to a get a block warning for that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is a good concept to keep in mind whenever edit warring starts to arise, and action can be taken by the community when an editor flagrantly violates it repeatedly, but it is a terrible concept to try to implement as a policy since basically it can be thrown so much around whenever a disagreement comes up. It is effectively one strike, and it would harm new and experienced editors alike against those that like to wikilawyer. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Way overdue, in my opinion. Bold edits are fine, reverts are fine, but when people insist on forcing their bold edit in against consensus is when things go off the rails. 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better solution would be to shift the edit warring policy to carve out an exception when one side of the war has made all reasonable attempts to engage in discussion and where the other side has completely ignored those attempts. If you have provided detailed edit summaries on each revert that also direct to a place to discuss, started a talk page conversation, and left the other editor a talk page message, and other editors have agreed with the reversion, until the other editor responds some how, its clear who is following the spirit of the edit warring rule. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be a step in the right direction. If BRD is the type of editing framework we actually want then sanctions should be less severe against those editors that are making a serious attempt to apply it? Betty Logan (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support. There are those who've used BRD as a way of justifying nearly any revert and then saying discussion needs to occur, even when there's no actual objection to the original edit, ie. saying that any show of boldness is reason for reverting, and all edits should be discussed first (believe it or not, I've come up against this more than once, and have had to describe the spirit of BRD to opponents). I'd like it to become policy that a revert of a revert is unacceptable without discussion except in specific cases (the actual spirit of BRD), but the little loophole it provides for arguing down boldness should also explicitly be closed within the policy if it is promoted. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:26, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to reduce boldness of the first edit, it's actually my favorite part of the guideline. The problem really is the revert of the revert (sorry if this doesn't come across well in my proposal)—after all it is not the bold edit that starts an edit war, and it is not the revert, it is the revert of the revert that breaks the BRD cycle. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just returned to editing after a long break so am slightly hazy on the "rules" so i may be on the wrong track here. But I've always been puzzled why 3RR should trump BRD for articles with low editing traffic. Many articles have maybe only a couple of active editors at any one time. If the bold editor isn't prepared to D then, other than resorting to cumbersome/ineffective admin processes, the "preserver" of the existing consensus is always going to be the one at most risk of hitting the 3RR buffer first. DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very much support Often editors say that BRD is "not policy" and therefore their failure to discuss and multiple reverts are not against policy. BRD is in fact already policy, because you can't do things any other way without edit warring. It just needs the official seal. However, it should be made clear in BRD that it is not an excuse for reverting if there is no dispute concerning content. Also agree that there should be a time limit for discussion: if you revert someone, be ready to discuss. Policy has to be gaming-proof. B^e——C_ritical 21:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not I believe that this is being brought up with the best of intentions, but the side effect of making BRD some sort of policy would be that most changes could be reverted with impunity. We already have enough trouble with ownership issues, there's no need to make them worse. Incidentally, this is a bit of a perennial proposal, and the use of either AN or the VP to try to implement this is not the best of ideas. This discussion should really be on Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, where similar proposals have failed to gain consensus for years now. There are several archived discussions that I encourage supporters to skim through as soon as possible.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is to allow "bold" editors to enforce their edits by warring them in up to 3RR. B^e——C_ritical 22:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is part of a much larger problem of people dismissing sound reasoning in favour of the "official policy" seal of approval. BRD and also the MoS are based on reasoning, which means that anytime someone decides to do things differently, they need to have an overriding reasoning for that particular occasion (which may well exist). But instead of engaging in honest discussion and thereby being forced to explain their reasoning (which may as well not exist), many simply dismiss the rationales collected in the MoS and pages like BRD. Imho, the solution cannot be declaring all of those pages policy. The solution would be to elevate the status of sound reasoning and specifically require overriding rationales for any departure from the MoS or other pages. The best place to set that in stone would be IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it, but be prepared to present the reasoning for your decisions. --213.168.72.198 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, because we already have WP:EDITWAR and we don't need more than that. On the other hand, I would support the creation of a policy that mandated an instant, irrevokable, lifetime ban from all Wikimedia sites as soon as someone invokes the argument "It isn't a policy, so I don't have to follow it." That is the weakest defense of one's actions. Making this a policy will not change such behavior, but it will add to the confusing network of Wikipedia policies which we're allowed to ignore if it makes the encyclopedia better anyway. Seriously, if someone claims they don't need to discuss an edit which is in dispute because BRD isn't a policy, then they have no business at Wikipedia anyways, regardless of what this page is labeled. --Jayron32 22:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with your sentiment, but let's be honest here: this has never been enforced, and most likely never will be in any meaningful way. Heck, with the direction things are going, the only remaining policies to be considered binding and properly enforced will soon be CIVIL and NPA. I'm an exopedian, but even I can clearly see that we as a community have never been further from reason-based sanity. Throwing people out for refusing to enter honest and open discussion of their edits sounds too good to be true. And unfortunately, it is. Pretty soon, even inquiring about an edit will be regarded as "harassment". You know it's true. --213.168.72.198 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, the problem with EDITWAR is that it just doesn't seem to work that well. If you look at the case I was involved in (four editors reverting a SPA that had previously been blocked and attempting to engage him in discussion), all five of use effectively "edit-warred" but circumstances for the reverts were radically different. One set of reverts represented a consensus, and were accompanied by attempts to engage the SPA, while the otehrs were a unilateral action making no attempt to address the policy concerns of their edit. And while 3RR is a bright red line, I've notice it being smudged a lot recently too, with a new mantra "three reverts is not a right". It seems to me that we want editors editing within the BRD framework, and I don't think the current guidelines actually complement that ethos. Even a small change to the 3RR rule, so that multilateral action backed by consensus would be permitted to revert an editor operating unilaterally would be a huge improvement. If the lone editor feels he is being gamed by a tag-team then he can always request a 3O or and RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the lone editor feels he is being gamed by a tag-team then he can always request a 3O or and RFC. -- Allowing tag-team reverts would make this despicable and already far too widespread practice completely impossible to counter -- especially for less than perfectly well-established users. No new user even knows about RFC, let alone has the time and patience to do that in order to defend an edit. You might as well deactivate IP editing and new registrations. DR is a farcically impossible obstacle course as it is, gamed to oblivion and beyond. All it takes is a healthy measure of intellectual dishonesty, and networking. Just goad the newbie into a violation of CIVIL and/or NPA, and you will never have to answer to any of their valid points. This is already the reality of how Wikipedia "works". --213.168.72.198 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People (meaning the general community) don't pay much attention to RFC's either, aside from the "big ones". How many people are aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The event Betty's went through is the second time in less than a week (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive748#What are legitimate grounds for a precipitate block for edit warring.3F) where it looks as though admins looked only at the edit history of the articles before deciding on a course of action. I don't know which is more worrisome - deciding that edits reverting SPA POV pushers spread out over several days or weeks are a violation of the 3rr rule - or not examining the talk page to see that Wikipedia's guidelines about using discussion were being followed by the editors who are trying to protect the article. The attitude that one SPA account can edit against an established consensus is also troubling. There may be better solutions that come up from this discussion but until admins are willing to be more thorough in investigating edit conflicts making BRD policy is a good place to start. Ohms Law as you should well know Consensus can change and just because those of discussions of the past rejected it does no mean that it can't be discussed again. How are good editors of long standing supposed to protect themselves against lazy admins - or worse as in the case from the 20th - admins. Jayron the current EW policy is being poorly applied and isn;t protecting good faith editors. This problem Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Loss of more and more and more established editors and administrators can only get worse when long term editors are treated poorly in favor of SPA POV pushers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a policy problem though, it's a behavior issue. Talk to the admins who are involved in these things.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't do much good when the admins refuse to discuss it as was the case in the events of April 20th (especially when they go offline just after the block) or act like Betty did something wrong in the case that started this thread. Nobody is asking admins to be perfect but this trend of not being thorough is doing damage and editors need something to protect them. MarnetteD | Talk 22:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's a behavioral issue, but one that seems to persist. We could say it's something that requires further educating people as issues arise, but that means continually having to go through the same old arguments. The situation appears to be that people only respect actual policies, and right now the correct behavior isn't adequately described in policy. BRD represents the elaboration we need. I don't think it's unreasonable to include it as an extension of the edit warring policy, to illustrate what people need to do to adhere to policy in further detail, the same way RS could be said to extend V (as a crude example). Equazcion ^(talk) 22:42, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
So, we go through the same old arguments. Big deal. That's better than the alternative. Incidentally, this is one of those "same old arguments" too, and I personally don't understand the continuous desire to halt discussion about these sorts of issues. Well, actually, I do understand it, I just don't think it's a good idea to follow through on that thinking.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being that they're the same, and they're old, and policies are meant to illustrate accepted practices so that they don't have to be continually described to people -- I think that's the reason. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:00, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Here's the thing though: a lot of policy already covers the topics that often come up. The "problem" is that the policy coverage doesn't match the personal views of the person who's trying to make a case (if they're even aware of the policy). Aside from that, policy doesn't really matter anyway, which is to say that it's not supposed to be legislation.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's not supposed to be, but it is respected as such in the vast majority of situations. This argument (and many others here, I'm noticing) could be used to simply say no more policies should be created. Is that what the issue really is? Policy doesn't work and since people can abuse them we shouldn't be making them at all? I don't think this is logical. Policies DO work in most cases. There are people who abuse and ignore them, and those cases end up in the spotlight, but on the whole, they help avert most of the issues they're intended to. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:17, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
I'll gladly say it outright: no new policies should be created. Unless something extraordinary happens, or something fundamental changes, I can't imagine anything new that could be policy. I also don't think that a vocal minority of people who want policy to be legislation (or noobs who assume that it is) should be a reason to actually make it into legislation. If we have to jump through hoops the make edits, then nobody will make edits at all. Which brings up a point: how in the world would a BRD policy be enforceable? Would people patrol Special:RecentChanges looking for reversions, or something? But, I agree with the fact that existing policy works. Adjusting policy due to the unusual "spotlight" circumstances such as the ones that prompted this proposal is generally a bad idea, in my opinion.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one's only in the spotlight because of this proposal. Edit warring, even if it ever gets to the EW noticeboard, is generally not, and that's where this would help -- the vast numbers of times these situations occur in everyday editing. BRD doesn't constitute jumping through hoops -- it's basically already what we all have to do. There would be no special patrol required, any more than an NPA patrol is. It would just be something constructive editors can point to in a dispute. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:10, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)
It's possible that I'm wrong, but the main motivation for this proposal seems to be two similar AN/I incidents that have occurred in the last couple of days. I agree that BRD doesn't constitude jumping through hoops, but that's largely because it's not policy. If you read it through the prism of it being policy, it would clearly entail quite a bit of jumping though hoops (which is why it's current and historical content emphasizes the fact that it's not appropriate in all situations).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:BRD is advice directed toward editors seeking to follow best practices and minimize problems. Such individuals typically are inclined to abide by its spirit (regardless of how the page is tagged), so making it a policy wouldn't change their behavior. It would, however, invite exploitation by parties more interested in rules-lawyering than in peaceful collaboration.
Disruptive editing (including edit warring) already is proscribed (and can result in blocks when necessary). If WP:EW isn't being adequately enforced, the solution is to take steps to ensure that it is, not to transform a helpful rule of thumb into a blunt instrument with which to accost fellow editors. —David Levy 22:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is just a starting point David. Have you any suggestions for how EW may be adapted to encourage editing more in the style of what we would like to see. If you take my case, four editors reverting a SPA that was adding unsourced POV material, being prohibited from reverting the SPA despite a consensus and despite engaging the SPA in discussion on the talk page, do you think blocking any of the editors reverting the SPA is really justified? If not, what alteration would you make so that admins don't administer the rule to that effect? Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the issue you describe reflects flaws at WP:EW or merely the policy's misapplication is something that should be discussed. At this juncture, I have no solution to suggest, but I'm interested in working toward one. —David Levy 23:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Well meaning, but introduces a second mover advantage that would actually aid POV warriors and editors with page ownership issues in many cases. Reso lute 22:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Why in the hell do we need yet another policy to bolster an already existing policy (Wikipedia:Edit warring) that is sorely in need of either total reassessment and overhaul? Fix the current edit warring policy before introducing anything else. Also, as Masem said, it would only be another policy people will likely wikilawyer or abuse. --MuZemike 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you all not reading what we are writing? Or are you just ignoring it? The EW policy did not work in either case we have brought to this discussion as two editors who weren't edit warring were accused of it and one was blocked. Please give us a solution as to how you are going to prevent this. MarnetteD | Talk 23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the message to which you responded? ~~Resolute~~ MuZemike explicitly acknowledged that Wikipedia:Edit warring is sorely in need of total reassessment and overhaul (i.e. that it's broken and should be fixed). Opposition to a proposed solution isn't tantamount to denial that a problem exists. —David Levy 23:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did and I was not responding to MuZemike's post. That is why I used the term you all rather than typing in his name. There have been several posts acting like our concerns are not worth considering. I can't help that my post came immediately after his anymore then I can help your misinterpretation of it. MarnetteD | Talk 23:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the confusion, but you indented your message as a reply to MuZemike (who explicitly referenced the policy to which you referred), so I'm not sure how you expected anyone to realize that he/she was excluded from "you all" (or, for that matter, that "all" didn't actually mean "all").

To which users were you referring? Who has stated that nothing should be done to address the concerns (as opposed to opining that the proposed change is not a good solution)? —David Levy 00:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Dave Resolute didn't make that edit that you think he did. Easy mistake to make though so don;t worry about it. MarnetteD | Talk 23:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I typed the wrong editor's name. (I've corrected that above.) —David Levy 00:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is certainly preferable to keep SPA POV editors confined to the talk page rather than letting them do damage to an article and BRD does that. MarnetteD | Talk 23:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and those are just examples of a rather prominent problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:10, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

If a group of editors formulate a consensus for an article, and make genuine attempts to engage a unilateral editor in discussion which yields very little effect, then there should be some criteria in EW protecting them from potential blocks. An admin's discretion doesn't cut it, because discretion is actually a freedom to interpret the rules either way. EW as it stands reflects too little faith in editors to edit according to policy. If consensus is king, then itsurely trumps unilateral editing which is soemthing EW should account for. Betty Logan (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let's discuss improving WP:EW. —David Levy 00:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically EW really needs to be worded so that an article consensus isn't vulnerable to a SPA. An unilateral view cannot form a consensus (whether it is right or not), so the onus should be on the solo editor to either find someone who backs his position or to stop attempting to push through the same edit that has been rejected, either through his own volition or by a sanction. If someone supports his position then you can go down the dispute resolution route, but I don't see the point in wasting everyone's time by taking a SPA to DR when a regular editorial consensus on an article talk page can take care of it. If an admin feels that the SPA's case isn't being fairly heard, he can advise him on a course of action, but I don't think an admin should be able to administer blocks to a multilateral effort to enforce an article consensus against a SPA. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose BRD itself says that it shouldn't be used in all cases, and that it's only likely to work in the hands of a skilled editor. If we label it as a policy, we're going to see people insist that it always be followed. In effect, we'd be imposing 0RR rules on all bold editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what we should do, yes, that's the point: if you do a bold edit and get reverted, then discuss rather than just reverting again. OR ELSE, revise the definition of edit warring so that the person who reverted the first time is not edit warring when they revert a second time. B^e——C_ritical 23:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

0rr- Hmm that means no edit warring. Sounds good to me. MarnetteD | Talk 23:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand why the indiscriminate enforcement of such a rule would cause problems?

Someone attempting to own an article would effectively be able to dictate that nothing be changed without discussion. —David Levy 00:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We may as well enable Flagged Revisions.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the alternative is to let people edit war changes into articles? Give a good alternative rather than opposing this. B^e——C_ritical 00:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I (and others) already have: WP:EW. If it's broken, let's fix it. —David Levy 00:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think !votes here should reflect specific opposition to BRD becoming policy, rather than a generic opposition to policy creation in general. "It would give people something new to wikilawyer" really just shows a lack of faith in the concept of policies to begin with. If you don't think policies work and creating new ones causes more harm than good, that's your prerogative I suppose, but I just want to shed some light on what such statements are really saying. Reiterating my comment from above, some people will ignore and abuse policies, and those are the cases that hit the spotlight. I'll be audacious enough to say that bureaucrats, checkusers, arbs, and other "higher-ups" will be used to dealing with the headaches those situations create, and will therefore be more inclined to want to avert those than the lower-level editing troubles most editors get into every day, where having BRD as policy would be a tremendous help. Policies generally do work, and while potential for abuse is a valid concern, that's far from all there is to consider here. We shouldn't be letting potential for abuse of policies in general scare us away from creating any new policies altogether. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:49, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
We are citing specific ways that the proposed policy would be harmful. It isn't a matter of opening the door to loopholes. The intended effect, as described, would be problematic. —David Levy 00:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David, I could be wrong but your opposition comment seems to only point to the potential for the abuse of new policies. Could you tell me which part was not? Equazcion ^(talk) 00:15, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)
No, I was very careful to not use the word "abuse". I referred to "exploitation" (because said behavior, while problematic, would fall under the policy's intended effect). You evidently overlooked my WP:OWN example (something already mentioned by others). As I noted, it isn't a loophole. Under the proposed policy, a user would be entitled to veto all changes to an article and dictate that they not be restored without discussion. —David Levy 00:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say should be done instead, in those situations? Another revert? Equazcion ^(talk) 00:49, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)
In most cases, probably not. My point isn't that BRD is bad or shouldn't be applied. It functions well as advice to bold editors, not a policy invoked against them.
Under the current setup, reasonable objections lead to discussion. (And if they don't, further action can be taken.) Under the proposed setup, someone attempting to own an article would be entitled to effectively dictate that nothing be changed without discussion — something that few would attempt now (because they'd rightly be told that this is not BRD's intended effect).
That's my objection. The proposed change would transform BRD from a helpful rule of thumb to harmful rule of law. I don't indiscriminately oppose the creation of new policies; I oppose the creation of this policy. —David Levy 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So how could BRD be changed to address this concern, but also address the concerns of those wishing it to become policy? B^e——C_ritical 01:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. If someone comes up with a way, I'll reconsider my position. (I don't believe that making BRD a policy is desirable, but I'll keep an open mind.) —David Levy 01:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRD specifically should not be policy, for reasons that myself and several others have specified.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of getting the short end of the stick because other people are aggressive. How do you force someone to have a discussion instead of edit warring their changes into an article? Answer me that and I won't need to support BRD as policy. B^e——C_ritical 00:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer has been provided: fix WP:EW (assuming that it's broken). —David Levy 00:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So that's your answer? Hand waiving? I'm talking reality/practicality here. Let's hear your fix, then we will know if BRD shouldn't be policy. B^e——C_ritical 01:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation, as stated above, is to discuss WP:EW's flaws and determine how best to eliminate them. As I wrote, "at this juncture, I have no solution to suggest, but I'm interested in working toward one." My inability to produce a magic fix doesn't strip me of the right to criticise proposals with which I disagree. "Let's hear your fix, then we will know if BRD shouldn't be policy" relies on the premise that an idea automatically is good unless and until a better one is presented, which simply isn't true. —David Levy 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support In fact replace WP:EW with this. Sure it will give the advantage to content creators over drive-by editors, but they should have the advantage anyway. Anything that encourages discussion sooner is a good thing in my opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we delete WP:OWN too? —David Levy 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. If this is a policy WP:EW would be redundant. However, WP:OWN would still he relevant. Probably even more so. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed policy would create an entitlement to indiscriminately revert any and all undiscussed edits. How is this compatible with WP:OWN? —David Levy 02:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility of that (which I think is very low) is the reason we don't want to delete OWN and why I said it would be even more relevant. Continued disruption by demanding every change goes through you should result in some sort of sanction. AIRcorn (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the likelihood is low. I've come across many editors who would jump at the opportunity.
My point is that the proposed policy is incompatible with WP:OWN. Reinstating a bold edit, no matter why it was reverted (not that we can read editors' minds), would "result in an automatic block".
A user needn't preemptively threaten to revert any and all edits performed to the article without discussion. He/she might genuinely believe that his/her version is perfect and that most or all changes (even if examined on an individual basis) are bad. I've encountered this attitude on many occasions.
In its current form, BRD relies on goodwill, which eventually is exhausted. (If someone is exhibiting ownership, others will be less inclined to extend the courtesy.) Therefore, the potential for disruptive exploitation, particularly as a matter of course, is highly limited. Editors know that they can't get away with knee-jerk reversions of every change with which they disagree, so they have incentive to seek out alternative solutions (such as compromise editing and discussion without reversion).
Under the proposed policy, if someone dislikes a bold edit, he/she is unequivocally encouraged to revert it; this action is guaranteed to stand (pending the outcome of a mandatory discussion), so there's no incentive to do otherwise. —David Levy 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, how does it "give the advantage to content creators over drive-by editors"? It seems to me that it gives the advantage to the drive-by reverter: Aircorn boldly adds something great; I, possibly out of serious ignorance, revert it—and Aircorn is unable to re-add the information without discussing it. With me, a person utterly failing to keep up with my watchlist and therefore not likely to respond promptly to his discussion efforts. Who has the power in that situation? I don't think it's the content creator. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That hypothetical situation can go the other way too, where I add something crap and you have to jump through the 3RR hoops to get it put right. If you don't keep up with your watchlist and I gamed 3rr it is possible that I could keep my bad (possibly dangerous depending on the article) change in there for a long time. Dy definition the content creators are the ones who have put the original information in the articles so they get the "first move advantage". I would think most content creators would keep a close eye on there creations (you may be an exception). AIRcorn (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of "bad" edits which you're referring to do tend to create a lot of heat and light, but as frustrating as that can be it's not really a bad thing. We tend to do a pretty good job dealing with those situations.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "first move advantage" to which to refer sounds an awful lot like ownership. While that would be one side of the coin, I agree with WhatamIdoing that another, equally problematic side would favor drive-by reverters over the content creators whose interests you seek to protect.
No one should be handed such an "advantage". WP:BRD works well as rule of thumb applied by conscientious editors when the circumstances dictate, not as a rule of law invoked against others. —David Levy 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have seen far to many cases where BRD has been used to good effect by editors to enforce ownership of an article, forcing a reasonable change to the talk page the discussion of which is then filibustered out. Mt king^(edits) 00:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And your solution to this is edit warring. Not a good choice. B^e——C_ritical 01:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If BRD is being invoked as a means of owning an article (probably a relatively infrequent occurrence now, but one that the proposed change would encourage), it's likely that the first reversion otherwise wouldn't take place. Only when we hand editors a license to indiscriminately revert any and all undiscussed edits will they feel entitled to do so. —David Levy 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legit concern and has to be addressed. Anyone got any idea what could be added to BRD so that making it policy would not promote OWNership? B^e——C_ritical 01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership is only a problem when someone fights to keep their version of an article against consensus. It is not a problem when defending an article you have had major input in against a change you disagree with applied by a single editor. BRD itself is not necessarily a problem for ownership, the problem arises if after the discussion part the owner still insists on there version despite consensus. All it does is force the person invoking the change to show consensus for it. This is surely much better than the back and forth reversions with increasingly heated edit summaries. AIRcorn (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership is only a problem when someone fights to keep their version of an article against consensus.

No, that isn't the only circumstance in which it's a problem. Please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Examples of ownership behavior.

"The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article."

The proposed policy would create an entitlement to revert any and all changes that haven't been reviewed.

It is not a problem when defending an article you have had major input in against a change you disagree with applied by a single editor.

It's a problem when this is done indiscriminately (as the proposed policy would permit and encourage). Imagine having to obtain advance approval for each and every edit. Many users won't bother to go through the hassle, effectively affirming the invoking parties' ownership. ("I'm not allowed to change anything without discussion? Never mind. Have it your way.") —David Levy 02:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would create an entitlement or encourage indiscriminate use. If it is gamed (and most policies here can be) then there should be sanctions taken against the individual. I also think you underestimate the majority of the editors here, most welcome improvements to articles on their watchlist. Currently if two people feel strongly about a point they are going to either revert war or ideally take it to the talk page. A policy encouraging them to take it to the talk page early in the piece is a good thing. AIRcorn (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would create an entitlement or encourage indiscriminate use.

I disagree. I've encountered far too many owners (whose control was limited only by the absence of a policy like this one) to believe otherwise.

If it is gamed (and most policies here can be) then there should be sanctions taken against the individual.

I agree that most policies can be gamed. My point is that the behavior that I describe wouldn't constitute gaming; it would fall under the explicit purpose of the proposed policy (to mandate that any contested bold edit not be restored without discussion). There are editors who genuinely believe that their versions of articles are perfect and that most or all changes (even if examined on an individual basis) are bad. Under the current setup, they know that they can't get away with knee-jerk reversions of every change with which they disagree (because BRD isn't mandatory, so others aren't required to tolerate such behavior), so they have incentive to seek out alternative solutions (such as compromise editing and discussion without reversion).

Under the proposed policy, if someone dislikes a bold edit, he/she is unequivocally encouraged to revert it; this action is guaranteed to stand (pending the outcome of a mandatory discussion), so there's no incentive not to.

I also think you underestimate the majority of the editors here, most welcome improvements to articles on their watchlist.

No, I don't disagree with that. But it only takes one owner for the problem to arise.

Currently if two people feel strongly about a point they are going to either revert war or ideally take it to the talk page. A policy encouraging them to take it to the talk page early in the piece is a good thing.

And that's why we have WP:EW. If it's inadequate, let's improve it. —David Levy 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. WP:BRD is a bad advice (even as an essay) because it encourage edit warring. If someone was bold, this is not a reason for reverting his/her edit. Talk first, then make a compromise edit. Do not revert. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is that BOLD is bad advice. Do you honestly think every single edit should be discussed beforehand? Asking since I am regularly being reverted even on the (imho) least controversial of edits (e.g. straighforward formatting edits following clearcut MoS advice) and find myself having to subsequently explain the edit (i.e. "discuss with") the reverting editor. --195.14.222.182 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am telling that to be BOLD ("B") is fine, but reverting prior to discussion ("R") is frequently not. In most cases this should be a "BDC" cycle: "Bold-Discuss-Compromise". My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen BRD cited where the D doesn't happen virtually simultaneously with the R. The discussion is usually started by the reverter. On the other hand, asking someone to compromise after making a bold edit is a good way to empower SPA's to be able to insist on, and have their version of content represented over the more neutral version. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to be BOLD ("B") is fine, but reverting prior to discussion ("R") is frequently not -- "Frequently" meaning approximately half the time. In the other half of all cases, the edit is controversial enough to warrant prior discussion. The onus is really on all involved parties to recognize a need for and to engage in discussion as early as possible. Sometimes the editor who wants to make a change is the reasonable one and first enters discussion, sometimes it's the other editor. Whether or not a revert is warranted depends entirely on the edit itself. It all boils down to competence and honesty. The problem is that (short of an RfAr) it's next to impossible to call people out even on clearly dishonest behavior, let alone to even insinuate that they may not be perfectly neutral or competent. Thank the CIVIL brigade. --87.79.43.249 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above-discussed WP:OWN issue isn't the only problem. WP:BRD works well as a rule of thumb, applied with common sense (as the circumstances dictate), not as a law to be followed to the letter.
For example, suppose that someone reverts one of my edits due to a clear misunderstanding (made obvious by the edit summary). The spirit of BRD doesn't require me to initiate a pointless discussion about a nonexistent dispute. I'll simply restore my edit (being careful to explain the nature of the misunderstanding). If that editor (or another one) still objects to my edit (for a reason unrelated to a clear misunderstanding), that's when it makes sense to advance to the "D" stage.
Under the proposed policy, the specific circumstances (and a common-sense interpretation thereof) would be irrelevant. My approach would "result in an automatic block". —David Levy 02:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - While BRD is the way to go, having that in place as a policy is not going to cause newcomers and POV warriors to suddenly start following the policy, it's just going to create multiple hundreds of potential violators every day for the drama zombies to work themselves in a tizzy over at ANI. Leave bad enough alone, build use of BRD by acting that way and encouraging emulation. Carrite (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because as it stands it can be misunderstood and misapplied as advice to revert someone who has been WP:Bold. WP:Consensus, which is a policy, already has a section Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing which approaches the same situation through the consensus model, and explains that you reach consensus through editing first. It is only when there is disagreement that we need to have the discussion. I am uncomfortable when anyone reverts the work of an established editor in good standing unless there has been discussion regarding the edit, and the consensus is that the edit is wrong but the editor refuses to change it. Reverts should only be for vandalism. It would be more in line with the ethos of co-operative and collegiate editing if Bold Revert Discuss was changed to Bold Discuss Revert. Enshrining in policy that it is OK to revert the good faith and positive edits of an established editor in good standing without discussion is Not A Good Thing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose CONSENSUS, 3RR/1RR and EW are the policies. BRD is a friendly guidance towards obtaining the former, and avoiding the latter 3. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, EW didn't work in our case did it? Editors that have formulated a consensus on the article talk page should be allowed to restore that consensus against a SPA. After a detailed analysis of the problem edits on the talk page, efforts to engage the SPA in discussion, a semi-protection request and two reports to the 3rr/ew board, your judgment was to bar us from making further reversions and to take the case to dispute resolution. Dispute resolution is there to form a consensus, not to enforce one. We have the consensus we just need it enforced, and editors should be able to restore a consensus against a SPA without being blocked. On a site grounded in consensus editing, consensus editing should be enforced over unilateral editing. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Too often, the reversion cycle ends up being BRRtRD (Be Bold, Revert, Revert the Revert, Discuss) rather than BRD. The way edit warriors (who aren't actually vandalising or breaching NPOV or other seem to work, it ends up being like this

User 1: "boldly" edits, adding problematic content;

User 2: Reverts, starts discussion on talk page;

User 1: Ignores (or arrogantly writes off comments on) talk page, reverts;

User 2: Reverts, pointedly directs to talk page;

User 1: Ignores talk page, reverts;

User 2: Reverts again, desperate plea for User 1 to go to talk page, goes for help at concerned wikiprojects;

User 1: Ignores all efforts to collaborate, reverts;

At this point, if User 2 reverts again, then s/he is in breach of WP:3RR. User 1 effectively games the system without any sanction. An accusation of gaming the system probably wouldn't pass for WP:AGF reasons, or otherwise. There are some very experienced editors who use this to effectively insist on their version, without having to talk to those who are beneath them.

While acknowledging that it might need to be reworked slightly, WP:BRD can stop this from happening. Once invoked, it should cut off the reversion cycle at the point where it is invoked. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...by establishing the right to veto any and all bold changes with which one disagrees (pending a mandatory discussion), thereby removing the incentive to seek an alternative form of resolution (such as compromise or permitting the edit to stand while the discussion occurs). —David Levy 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Resolute. I too have seen "BRD" used as an excuse by POV pushers or editors with ownership issues on articles. BRD is an essay because it encourages editors to discuss bold changes. Making it policy would, as Resolute, give the second editor an advantage, and to an extent, even enable them to block edits from being added to an article. I appreciate the proposers intentions, but I think this may do more harm than good. Steven Zhang ^Talk 11:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least if the "D" part of "BRD" entails "waiting for consensus to be established with the help of outside input" (which seemed to be implied by the proposer's wording above). Any rule about dispute resolution that forces people to rely on outside attention from neutral parties, in whatever form (be it 3O, noticeboards or whatever) is doomed to failure. Getting outside attention is wonderful advice and may work well for those who choose to do it, but it would very quickly stop being good advice as soon as everybody was forced to do it all the time. The reason is simple: outside attention is a scarce good, and there will never be enough of it to go round for everybody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very much that, and on the other hand there's already an abundance of tag-teaming and meatpuppetry among established "crews" of owners. I shudder to think how many times a tag-team would get away with e.g. having a likeminded colleague respond to a 3O. One just has to look at articles that are currently de facto owned to see the unacceptable reality of BRD as policy, which rapidly turns into a game of revert any edit and discuss the editor off the talk page or off Wikipedia entirely, if at all possible. How many established editors have been reprimanded, let alone blocked or banned, for gaming the system, for ignoring the spirit of P&G in this way? None, or maybe one? If P&G reflects actual behavior by (far too many) Wikipedians, we might as well declare BRD policy and replace consensus with the advice to game the system. --195.14.222.182 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm been on both sides of the fence, and it is frustrating when you are a solitary editor and the other side makes no valid effort to engage in discussion. However, whether you are up against a genuine mulitlateral effort or a tag-team the net outcome is the same, you still need a consensus to install your edits. If you are unable to find anyone at all to support your stance then it probably is not a legitimate stance. Betty Logan (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not saying that I believe BRD should be adopted as policy. However, by the same token, I don't think I'm seeing anything from the Oppose side that I don't think could be addressed by modifying BRD to address Oppose's concerns. It seems obvious to me that adopting BRD as policy would certainly not be intended to allow any editor to summarily revert any changes to an article, and I would think any use of BRD in such a heavy-handed manner could be considered disruptive and treated accordingly (especially if such treatment was spread across multiple articles). Are there aspects of Oppose's concerns that could not be encoded into the policy? If so, which, and why not? If the primary thrust of Oppose's arguments is problems with BRD as it currently stands, I don't see anything wrong with at least attempting to change BRD accordingly. Just my two cents. Doniago (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point of the proposal, as I understand it, it to make BRD mandatory. Disagree with a bold edit? Go ahead and revert it, and the other party must discuss the matter instead of undoing the reversion (with the latter "result[ing] in an automatic block").
Certainly, the blind reversion of literally every edit to a page (including typo fixes) wouldn't be tolerated. But if someone genuinely disagrees with most or all non-trivial changes to an article, how is it possible to draw a line that doesn't defeat this proposal's purpose?
Additionally, please see my comment from 2:56 (UTC) for an example of a problem unrelated to WP:OWN.
If we somehow stipulate that BRD isn't always applicable, how are we left with something materially different from (let alone better than) what we have now?
(Given the fact that you seek to stimulate discussion, not to promote a particular outcome, these questions aren't directed specifically toward you.) —David Levy 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPA exemption – The proposal clearly isn't going to fly, but at the same time we shouldn't pretend that EW rules can't be improved either. We could add an exception to the 3rr/ew rule such that editors restoring an article consensus against a SPA are exempt from sanctions i.e. we just treat it along the same lines of the current vandalism exemption. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about established SPAs? --195.14.222.182 (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral editing doesn't trump a consensus. If the SPA is established he should seek out someone to support his view, and then it is a matter for dispute resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Successful networking is a hallmark of virtually all established editors, including established SPAs. They just claim "consensus". Heck, some of them manage to paint the opposition as being SPAs and edit warriors -- which they are just "bravely countering". Needless to say, any attempt of addressing such situations is doomed to fail because friends will be friends, no matter what. Maybe I've been too deep down the rabbit hole to have any illusions anymore, but there's no doubt in my mind that any policy reform proposal that might actually be effective in such situations will never be adopted. The status quo is double standard galore, and intellectual dishonesty is the catalyst. There's no formulaic way of countering that. My view is admittedly bleak, but we will have to accept the reality that established groups of people can push their POV virtually unhindered unless there's another, equally established group of people challenging them. It all boils down to the sum total of "wikipower" assembled behind a certain POV. --195.14.222.182 (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually dispute that networking can sometimes subvert the ultimate goals of neutality, but if no-one supports your view your edits will never stick anyway, regardless of the process. Betty Logan (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many too easy ways around that as long as "no-one" means no established editors. A large number of people may share the same opinion regarding the encyclopedic validity of certain content, but they have no chance of countering the established POV e.g. as long as they don't happen to be on Wikipedia during the same period. As long as there are no neutral and established observers willing to intervene on behalf of actual neutrality and honest discussion, individual challengers are easy to take down one by one. I've seen it happen far too often without any ramifications, even in the long run. What we really need is a content-focused analog to ArbCom, with the authority to make binding decisions regarding content. But the community doesn't have the resources for that. --195.14.222.182 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone has asserted that there's no room for improvement at WP:EW, but the correct forum in which to discuss potential changes to the policy is WT:EW. —David Levy 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest? This proposal clearly isn't going to pass in any form, so do you recommend closing it and starting a fresh proposal at EW? I don't want to go over there and then be accused of forum shopping. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't constitute forum shopping (in my view), but I don't recommend that you jump straight into another concrete proposal (which asks users to pass judgement on an idea that might not have been adequately fleshed out and compared with alternatives).

I suggest that you initiate an open-ended discussion, with the goal of identifying the policy's problem(s) and arriving at one or more solutions. —David Levy 14:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you distinguish an "SPA" from a newbie making bold edits? Such an exemption could easily turn into a license to bite. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is difficult since the two are possibly the same at the start; lots of editors start on Wikipedia with a specific purpose. However, even in that case I would say the multilateral effort to restore a clear consensus still shouldn't be vulnerable to sanctions, because a unilateral view shouldn't be able to overturn a consensus, so I would prefer to see the disciplinary framework reflect that. I don't think it would make BITE any more of an issue than it already is, since that is more about an editor's attitude to another editor, rather than an editing decision. If an editor's response is so unreasonable that it violates BITE then an admin could still issue sanctions on those grounds. Betty Logan (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Power will lie in the hands of the reverter and that's not necessarily a good thing. It'll also force every bold editor to go into a cycle of dispute resolution as the only way of dealing with an entrenched 'owner' editor and we need less of that sort of thing, not more. In the majority of cases that I've seen, D does follow B and R and I think this is unnecessary. --regentspark (comment) 13:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of proposed revision to 3RR/ew directly above? Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "BRD" is just sort of way of saying "go ahead, give it a try, but if people oppose you, the other processes will apply". And "other processes" is an immense range of policies and processes. Fine if you want to just clarify that BRD is just that, but trying to define the process would require writing a book which would be a duplication of all of those other policies and mechanisms. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have a policy against edit warring. If that policy needs to be fixed, discuss it and fix it. It may very well be that EW could be improved by concepts from BRD, but keep it in the existing policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing EW

Here is the trouble I encounter: Person A makes a change, person B reverts and ask for discussion, person A reverts back. Person B does not want to "edit war" so leaves person A's change in the article, meanwhile begging person A to discuss. The change remains in the article so long as person A either refuses discussion or as long as the discussion lasts. The trouble is that the system rewards person A, because person B does not want to "edit war," or else punishes both parties if person B chooses more reverts. So:

Change EW to say that reverting an edit pending consensus is not edit warring.

I know this will be criticized as promoting ownership of articles, but if no one wants to say that, per BRD, person A is in the wrong, then what other alternatives are there besides to give person B an exemption from the edit warring rule? B^e——C_ritical 15:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite happens just as often. A makes a change, B reverts, A wants to discuss and B obstinately refuses to engage in discussion. In your scenario, A is clearly wrong for re-reverting instead of starting a talk page discussion. --87.79.43.249 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, so what are you saying, a refusal to discuss is legitimate reason to revert after a while? Maybe what we need is to revive Wikipedia:Town Sheriff? B^e——C_ritical 16:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Town Sheriff is fundamentally inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia, I would suggest leaving that idea dead, trying to revive it is likely to destroy any chance of coming to a consensus on adjusting the edit warring rules. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a refusal to discuss is legitimate reason to revert after a while? -- Depends on the edit in question. But yeah, the edits resp. reverts of someone who refuses to enter discussion should be revertable and exempt from 3RR. In fact, anyone who refuses to enter discussion should be swiftly banned from the project. This includes a refusal to discuss honestly. --87.79.43.249 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would go quite that far, I think the normal edit warring rules should apply when there is an ongoing attempt by both sides to resolve the issue. What should not be edit warring is when one party is clearly trying to initiate a discussion and the other party refuses to discuss, then only the party refusing to discuss should be considered edit warring. Such a narrower rule would also reduce the ownership issue. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]