Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2013/May

What counts as a revert

I have been accused of getting close to the three revert rule. However the rule is against reverts right. If I add a category and that is all the edit I do is, how can that possibly be a revert?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Best place to argue this out is on the Talk Page of the article in question, but if you want advice here, just paste in a link to the article or the page in question. Thanks for coming here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Since even some longtime editors seem to have this problem (or pretend to?) it would help if at the end of "What edit warring is" section this project page had a sentence saying:

Note that adding new referenced material or adding appropriate cleanup tags, even to parts of the article under dispute, is not considered a revert. However, it may be considered edit warring if done in an obviously disruptive manner to areas in dispute.

Tags are mentioned later but needs to be mentioned here too. So I'm going to do that and hopefully we can discuss here if people disagree. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As Tom Clancy's hero Jack Ryan always says, "If you have to write down your ethics rules, you've already lost the battle." Even if this isn't an ethics issue, per se, I am so far unconvinced that adding yet more legalistic folderol will really reduce the frequency of arguments in the first place. Worse, doesn't the proposed text just create new wikilawyer ammunition and/or provide a new bit of language to fight about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Just in last two weeks I've had to explain to new editors - and one old one who habitually doesn't get it - that adding a tag or new info (which always was to another section than dispute) is NOT a revert. I know it took me a long time to figure out what a revert is or is not. With all the wordiness in there this seems particularly important. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

How about repackaging your idea as a proposed addition to the straight-forward list at WP:NOT3RR? I'm not promising to endorse it that way just yet (haven't seen such a draft yet after all) but as an addition to an already-existing list of not-3RR instead of a stand-alone statement my opposition would be greatly reduced. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's more complicated then that. If, for example, a {{NPOV}} tag is added to a section, when it had been there before and removed (whether or not the additions or removals are justified), then it's a revert. Adding a {{disputed-inline}} tag instead of removing the disputed material is not normally a revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the change stating that adding new referenced material or adding tags is not a revert (diff). It may be possible to study the whole page and explain that the proposed text is consistent with it, but there should be no wiggle room to excuse disruption—"I'm adding material to Evolution referenced to my favorite creationist website, so I'll just keep re-adding it because that's not edit warring", or "I'll keep re-adding NPOV tags because Evolution assumes science is good". It is the other people who are removing my text that are being disruptive, not me. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Ultimately it's not feasible to discuss every possible permutation in policy. NE Ent 01:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed yes - Ne Ent's comment captures the main reason for my remaining skepticism. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the reason I added the part about disruption. Well, as long as I keep winning the argument in real life, I guess it doesn't matter. But some editors are being faked out by other editors lying to them and telling them putting on a tag or adding material is "against 1rr" or "against 3rr." I probably fell for it myself way back when. Un-savvy editors will be tricked by tricksters even if we all won't be. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Exemptions from 3rr need to be tightly limited, it is one thing to give an exemption to vandalfighters because we can all agree that what they do is useful. Templating by contrast is much more contentious even where the templates are "correct", some see it as almost as useful as actually improving articles, others see it as little better than vandalism. Also whilst we rarely get disagreements as to whether a particular edit is vandalism, we certainly get disagreements as to whether a particular template is correct or justifiable. Some templates are unambiguous, but those are unlikely to lead to editwarring between established editors. When templates become contentious then we shouldn't give the templaters an exemption from 3rr - doing that would be effectively to give templaters an advantage over content contributors. As for whether adding referenced material is ever a breach of 3rr, well yes it can be. For example if one editor thinks that covering an incident is wp:Undue and another keeps readding a paragraph "reliably sourced" to some tabloid newspaper than 3rr might apply. Or it might be that it is inappropriate to give more weight in someone's bio to a traffic offence that we wouldn't otherwise cover at all rather than the career for which they are notable. ϢereSpielChequers 04:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I fear there may be some misunderstanding. As I understand the proposal, it's not an attempt to create any kind of exemption from 3RR, just to clarify that certain kinds of edit (essentially, adding stuff for the first time) are not reverts. I assume that re-adding stuff that someone else has already removed is still supposed to be considered to be a revert. These questions seem to come up on the talk page quite frequently, so it would probably be good to answer them on the page itself. Victor Yus (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, maybe the proposal needs to say "adding brand new referenced materiall"! Or maybe we need to start a running list of all the times this issue comes up in various edit summaries and on various talk pages. :-) CarolMooreDC🗽 07:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Anything added to WP:EW is going to be interpreted as relevant to edit warring. Of course adding a tag or a reference once is not edit warring—there is no reason to mention the obvious. However, there appears to be a suggestion that re-adding a tag is not edit warring, and that is obviously not correct. Doing anything repeatedly on a page is edit warring, although reverting BLP violations is ok (but not very sensible if you are dealing with a persistent edit warring partner—I would stop at about my third revert regardless of the rules, and seek help). Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(A) It should be obvious that adding new text based on brand new RSs is not a revert and often turns a logjam into an important addition to an article, so I could get behind language explicitly saying what is implicitly obvious: that this type of edit is not a "revert". However,

(B) we should not explicitly sanction new tags because we don't want edit warriors to go from the undo button to inserting a ton of new tags and then claim they are not edit warring.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with News. I don't see the necesssity for adding this "clarification" or emphasis. I also think it hampers the discretion of the reviewing admins. Additionally, I tend to agree with NE Ent's statement (somewhere) about what he calls instruction creep. Finally, I wish people would stop being quite so bold about changing this policy. Truly gnomish edits, fine, but these go much further and need clear consensus in advance.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see the point more about tags; though sometimes it's the only way to get it into the head of an edit warrior that they have to cut it out. But I guess that can be decided on a case by case basis. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you need to "get anything into anyone's head" please just use WP:DR instead of starting a tag-war. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Bright line rule

You cannot call it a bright-line rule and then say "often". Needs to be changed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of that description (or of the rule itself), but I think it means bright in the sense that it's clear whether you've broken the rule (though I'm not sure that's really true either). It doesn't mean that the consequences of breaking the rule are automatic. Like a law that says "having sex with anyone under 16 counts as rape" might be called a bright-line rule, even if it doesn't prescribe a set punishment for that crime. That's how I understand it anyway. Victor Yus (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It does mean "always". That's the definition of the word. Either you insert "always," or you just call it a "rule".Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Where does your definition come from? Victor Yus (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Webster's. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Seb. See also Bright line rule. What we mean is that an editor's breaking of 3RR automatically subjects that editor to any administrator's discretion to impose various sanctions. When sanctions are discretionary, rather than mandatory, that's not a "bright line rule". Is it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• The language should remain as is. 3RR is a bright-line rule in the sense that once you exceed 3 reverts, it's a clear violation. The word "often" gives admins discretion whether to impose sanctions for the violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Admins have too much discretion in this, and often abuse that discretion. The wording should be changed, and there should be far less wiggle room for admins to impose their own POV by tolerating edit warriors whenever it suits their fancy. Federales (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, I think we agree that super-clear writing is a desirable goal. Do you agree that people do not automatically understand the specific meaning you have articulated? Evidence of confusion is this thread. In addition I don't use this phrase in my everyday speech. Do you? If we favor clear writing, then let's adopt clear words that clearly mean one thing and are not open to other interpretations. Such as

The 3RR rule is either broken or it is not broken. There is no middle ground. Any editor who breaks 3RR can be sanctioned, at the discretion of the administrators.

As for Federales' opinion above, making sanctions mandatory instead of discretionary is a different subject. My proposed language tries to capture existing reality in wording open to only one interpretation and relies on every day household language (hopefully). If we need to change the meaning, we should talk about that in a different thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not walking into such a loaded statement. Your proposed language is not an improvement. No one talks like that in my household. :-) It's unlikely I will have anything more to say on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Before you depart, please answer a question so we can assess your bulleted comment above.

You said

3RR is a bright-line rule in the sense that once you exceed 3 reverts, it's a clear violation. The word "often" gives admins discretion whether to impose sanctions for the violation.

Precisely how is that different from what my proposed text italicized in my prior comment? If there is no difference in meaning, then I do not think you have adequately stated the basis for your objection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A more salient point, I think, is not that an administrator has discretion as to what (if any) sanctions to apply for breaches of the rule, but that it is not in fact objectively clear whether someone has even broken the rule. There are so many exceptions, some of which rely on subjective judgment, as well as the possibility of receiving equivalent sanctions without having quite broken the rule, that it probably can't be called a bright-line rule even in the sense suggested above. Victor Yus (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The idea of "bright line" rules is that they are not subject to subjective interpretation but as Victor points out multiple exemptions to this rule are inherently open to good faith disagreement. Exemption No.4 ("clear" violation), No.5 ("obvious" vandalism), No.7 ("controversial" calls over BLP). I agree with Victor, calling this is "Bright line" rule is like saying the sky is ready for harvest. It just makes us look dumb. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bright-line rule is one of the most quoted rules on Wikipedia. As such, there should be an RfC before removing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

creep

Support removal of unnecessary addition [1] -- at the end of the day it's just impossible to write a policy that covers every "if" "and" and "but" All other things being equal, the shorter a policy page the more likely it will be read and understood. NE Ent 10:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

So maybe we just delete that sentence? ("It can involve as little as one word.") There's no suggestion anywhere else that reverts involving very small amounts of material would be exempt, so all that is added by that sentence is the possibility of confusion (the possible implication that less than one word and you're all right). Victor Yus (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The added content, it's totally unnecessary, and I agree 100% with NE Ent. In fact, I can't see any objection to removing the sentence, as Victor Yus suggests. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather small amount of consensus building before changing a high-visibility policy. I personally don't think the existing policy is broken, and I oppose attempts to "fix" it without first having a fair amount of discussion and a clear consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And where was the original discussion and consensus that this sentence should be added? Do you actually see a need for the sentence? If no-one disagrees, then consensus is there. Victor Yus (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I just disagreed. It isn't broken. Don't fix it. Please follow Wikipedia policy at WP:TALKDONTREVERT. I just restored the page to the stable pre-edit-war version as edited by Hyacinth at 02:33, 30 April 2013. Please read WP:BRD. A BOLD change has been made, it was Reverted, and now it is time to Discuss, not-re-revert. (BRD, not BRRD). --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

But what is your objection to the edit? Do you think the policy is broken without that sentence? (Your observations about BRD are misplaced - I assume you saw my next edit and you thought I was undoing your change, but I wasn't, that was something else. There is no edit-war.) Victor Yus (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're both right. If this were a tightly woven technical manual aiming for the highest degree of concise and grammatical instruction, then I'd !vote for expunging the whole sentence. However, our purpose here is to herd cats, and therefore a bit of redundant emphasis is appropriate and so I !vote for keeping the sentence "It can involve as little as one word." It is not causing any harm, and even Victor acknowledges a more-than-zero possibility it could be helpful. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

But more to the point, a more-than-zero possibility that it could be positively misleading (since it appears to fix "one word" as the level below which reverts don't count). Can we not rewrite the sentence so as to avoid this, without necessarily adding the three additional words that I added which some people seem to think is excessive instruction creep? Victor Yus (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(A) Originally added here I think

(B) I think this is the extent of the discussion, such as it was

(C) SUMMARY; There appears to be a consensus to keep something, though there is disagreement whether the current text "It can involve as little as one word." should be changed.

(D) PROPOSAL: In order to preserve the meaning and yet remove the problem Victor is raising, I suggest changing the current text from

"It can involve as little as one word."

to read

"If none of the listed exemptions applies, even an arguably minor change counts as a reversion."

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Victor that the current wording is problematic (not to mention sloppy, amateurish and unnecessary). I don't disagree with N&EG's proposed solution, but I think a more elegant solution would be to change "It can involve as little as one word" to "It can involve as little as one character", which would retain most of the existing language and correctly capture the meaning of the rule. Federales (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but what about tags? Whitespace? Order of sentences/paragraphs? Arguably these are all "minor", though reasonable minds could differ, and yet they would not be captured by the phrase "one character". In addition, someone is bound to make the (admittedly weak) claim they did not know "character" includes numbers punctuation or symbols. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Exceptions are exceptions; there's no need to restate them. And anybody who doesn't understand that punctuation consists of characters is not competent to edit here. We've seen edit-warring over commas and hyphens, so I think they really do need to be included. Federales (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Commas etc would be captured in both your version and mine. But mine goes further because mine would also capture non-character forms of editing and mine would also avoid potential (admittedly lame) discussion about what is (or is not) a character. Therefore, the revision I have proposed goes further to prevent problems, which is our purpose here. As for repeating a reference to the list of exemptions, our purpose is prevention. Is there any harm calling attention to the exemptions once again? If its repeated often enough hopefully eds will make more effort to articulate a claimed exemption up front. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A good solution, I think, is to replace the absurd "whether involving the same or different material" (see below) with the words "however minor". Thus killing about three birds with a single stone. Any objection? Victor Yus (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Victor, I think these are separate issues. I can remember the day I wanted to know if my big changes in paragraph 1 on one aspect of an article, and my big changes to paragraph ten on an entirely different aspect, were counted separately. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are connected issues, it just happens that the words that are problematic because of the other issue (explained below) happen to be in the same place as we could insert a different couple of words to resolve this issue. And reduce the overall number of words (thus helping in the battle against instruction creep) into the bargain. Victor Yus (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The same or different material

I really don't understand this revert. How can anyone support saying that "a revert means .... whether involving the same or different material"? That just doesn't make sense. We already mention about same or different material just above it in the box containing the rule - and in that context it does make sense, since we talk there about a number of reverts. Victor Yus (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That revert simply restored the page (again) to the revision as edited by Hyacinth at 02:33, 30 April 2013.Diff That was the last stable version before the current edit war (by my count there have been 12 reverts since then). My decision to restore the page to the last stable version while we discuss the proposed changes in policy was correct^[Note] and your decision to use reverts in an attempt to force the rest of us to accept an undiscussed policy change was improper. You are welcome to make a case for changing Wikipedia policy, but you are not welcome to make the change, challenge anyone to show why the change is not needed, and edit war to keep the policy change in place while the policy change is being discussed. Policy pages should be left in the last stable state while controversial changes are being discussed, and the burden is on the editor who proposes the change to make his case, convince others, and gain consensus before implementing the change.

(Note: whether I correctly identified the last stable version is another question, and I am open to arguments for another. I usually like to pick a version that has stayed unchanged for at least a month.)

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You picked a random version, without even looking at what changes were made, and accused me of edit warring when I clearly wasn't. If you are so ignorant or careless as regards the subject of edit warring as your actions yesterday seem to imply, you probably should stay well away from the policy page that addresses the subject. Victor Yus (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's work harder at AGF, hmmm? Although I'm not wedded to the phrasing, I think the "same or different material" concept is a very important part of the anti-editwar policy. Many articles I've edits are quite long (maybe too long!). Everyone should know that it doesn't really matter what text or RS is being tweaked, if its on a page anywhere, it all counts for one grand total for 3RR purposes. At least, I think that's what this awkward language is getting at, and I think its important to preserve the concept, although I wouldn't mind some better phrasing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is important, and as I've already said, it is still there, right in the big green 3RR rule box. I don't propose removing the concept, I propose removing the words from a place where they are needlessly repeated and where they manifestly do not make sense. They make sense when talking about a number of reverts, not when defining what we mean by "a revert". One single revert can't possibly not involve the "same" material, just as one horse is always the same color. Victor Yus (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm the guy who did the revert that is linked in the opening post. FYI, Victor has persuaded me that this particular sentence is gramatically flawed, and I plan to revisit the matter in the future after letting things quiet down. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Change of text

I'm fine with the wording as is but that does not mean that I'm "right" or that this (or any) policy page should be fossilized into its present state. What ideally would have happened during the page protection is a discussion of proposed specific wording changes on or more editors would like to see made; I encourage editors who feel the explanation of edit warring could be improved to make suggestions here so that we all may come to consensus on a better version. NE Ent 01:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree but you're overlooking fact that some of those threads already existed even before the protection period! Whadmoredyawant? (That was a joke.) For example, please consider responding to the merits of this proposed grammar correction that does not change the operation of the policy a whit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've restored policy back to Federales's change. I'm not happy with that change. I'm not happy with Hyacinth's change, but for the moment I didn't go further back.

You can discuss these changes as much as you like, but when your changes are challenged, you're going to need a very clear consensus for overriding that challenge, and I don't see any for any of these changes. A few editors agreeing is not good enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That's odd..... you say many people have to participate in the discussion yet you deleted the tags that link to the specific talk page thread. What is the purpose of the "dubious" template? Do you agree that it is meant to get greater editor involvement in the discussion? Exasperation doesn't count as a reason. Please explain why my tagging (and linking to the specific talk thread) was improper. Otherwise, please self-revert. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone really need an explanation of why it is not desirable to edit war over WP:EW, then tag it to express dissent? Pages like this are watched by many users, many of whom will have noticed this disagreement, yet who have not expressed support for a change. Therefore, Bbb23's revert is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• You all need to grow up and start a request for comment like an adult and form a consensus of what is the preferred revision. You all need to read WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, you know, this page. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

These reverts and protection are absurd. No-one has provided any substantial reason for undoing any of the changes (except one, which was not the subject of any continued edit warring whatever). This moronic "all changes must be blocked until 1000 (or something) WP editors have given their express consent" is surely one of the reasons why this and other policy pages are in such a poor state, continually leading to doubts and confusion. Normal minor corrections of the kind that have been taking place here recently should be allowed to proceed without stupid bureaucratic obstruction from people who clearly haven't even looked at what the issues are or whether there is any kind of edit war taking place (there wasn't, until the serial brain-turned-off reverters came along). (Sorry, the good-faithed brain-turned-off reverters.) In fact I don't think there was an edit-war at all; just various unconnected bold edits being reverted. Victor Yus (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, please stop making personal attacks on editors you disagree with. Secondly "there wasn't any edit war until people came along and started reverting" is completely content-free: there is never any edit war until people start reverting. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So hardly fair of the people who do the reverting to then accuse others of starting the edit-war, then, is it? And read my final sentence - there was in fact no edit war, but the page is protected; why? And note that none of the reverters are making any effort to join in the substantial discussion on the merits of the edits in question - I hope they soon will. I've seen this sort of situation too many times (I mean when people come along and revert changes just on the grounds that they were changes, without making any effort to justify their rejection of them) to be able to conceal my total contempt for the people who do this - they harm Wikipedia both directly (by preventing bad things from being made better) and indirectly (by frustrating their fellow editors so much that the latter eventually give up trying to make things better). Victor Yus (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: "there was in fact no edit war, but the page is protected; why?" Here is your answer: you are wrong about whether there was an edit war. Re: joining in a substantial discussion, you first need to accept the fact that your changes are not going to remain in the article while they are discussed. See WP:BRD and note that it is BRD, not BD or BRRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Are we to understand that, for invisible unknown reasons, on this page RFC = good while inline tagging = bad? I can live with that, but I reject scolding because I did not know this invisible rule. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the fact that there was an edit war (Victor Yus is simply wrong when he claims that there wasn't one) with the question of whether one group of warriors was right and the other group wrong on the content issue. Everyone involved should have agreed upon restoring the article to a stable pre-edit-war version. If anyone wants to know who deserves scolding, that is an easy call. Read BRD. Anyone who made a B edit was behaving properly. Anyone who made it BR was behaving properly. Anyone who made it BRR instead of BRD deserves to be scolded. BRRR isn't quite as bad, but should have been avoided. BRRRR is unambiguous non-3RR edit warring. Material about "bright-line rule" was added and removed 6 times. Material about "one word" and/or "less than one word" was added and removed 6 times. Material about "same or different material" was added and removed 4 times. Material about cleanup tags was added and removed 4 times. All of those should have stopped after one add (B) and one removal (R) and gone to talk page discussion (D) with no further reverts. WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're shooting from the hip, if you're suggesting I was in either camp of warriors instead of doing my best to generate the strongest possible consensus. In addition, you have not addressed the matter-of-fact question I posed about the reason the "dubious" tag even exists, or its allowed use in policy discussions. Other than expressing my disappointment with that response, I'll let the "bright line" matter die and start over later if I feel like it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggested nothing about you in particular. You, like everyone here, is fully capable of looking at your edits and determining for yourself whether they were legitimate WP:BRD edits. If they weren't (I am not saying they were or weren't), your reason for not following WP:BRD is irrelevant. If they were, it still makes no sense to address your comments about a particular content dispute at this time because everyone needs to stop edit warring and to leave the article in a stable pre-edit-war state before any substantive discussion about any content dispute can take place. I won't know whether that will happen until the protection expires. Again, I am not opining on whether you or anyone else is among those following WP:BRD or those violating WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You know who you are. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

While I was careful to follow BRD for my own part, you have still not addressed the question I am now asking in this thread for the third time. The reason tags and the parameter for linking to specific talk threads is to facilitate the BRD process, and when an editor removes tags pointing to current discussions the result is to reduce visibility, and thereby reduce participation in the related discussion, do you agree? If you do agree, please tie your response to the issue of the dubious tag you removed, because from here your long remarks on BRD, which I was careful to follow and which is facilitated by appropriate tagging, looks nonresponsive. If you don't agree that is the purpose of the tags, then please educate me as to why they exist? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Asked and answered.[2]

Also, exactly what part of "it makes no sense to address your comments about a particular content dispute at this time because everyone needs to stop edit warring and to leave the article in a stable pre-edit-war state before any substantive discussion about any content dispute can take place" are you having trouble understanding? That was and is my answer. Please strike your "unresponsive" comment above. There is a difference between me not answering and you not being willing to accept my answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do inline tags and their talk-page parameter even exist? No one here has answered that question. A corollary - Can they ever be used in a good faith? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why (most) tags exist (general case): "Identification of problems in articles is an important task in the creation of a reliable encyclopedia. 'Tags' are often used to indicate problems." --WP:TAGGING

Why (some) tags exist (the specific tags that two editors removed): "Occasionally, editors place tags to make a point, to disrupt editing, or to be tendentious." --WP:TAGGING

Can they ever be used in a good faith? Sure. Just because you placed some tags in bad faith in order to make a point, that does not imply that other editors (or you in other situations) don't place tags in good faith in order to identify problems in articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: AGF is not a suicide pact. There is no requirement to assume good faith despite evidence to the contrary. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(A) Ironically, the policy page explicitly states "editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion." (emphasis added) Holy good faith editing, Batman..... that's what I did

(B) If for some reason I am disqualified from proceeding under that language based on acts by 3rd parties, then see also Guilt by association and talk archives at "Can a single revert make an editor part of an edit war and sanctionable for edit warring?"

(C) But forget it. I'll make my case that the bright line rule reference is ambiguous and could be improved for the sake of improving the overall project later, if I'm still interested in the matter.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Your insults do not strengthen your case. Quite the opposite, acually. This edit was pure editorializing. Template:Dubious clearly says "Add {{Dubious}} after a specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced but which nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely" (emphasis in original). You were clearly attempting to question the wording of a Wikipedia policy, not contesting a sourced factual statement. I am done with you. if you think someone misbehaved, report them to ANI. You can respond if you wish, but I have no intention of reading it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

To what insults do you refer? And in the spirit of DON'T BITE, would some other tag have qualified for use under the language about it being appropriate to add tags? Those are rhetorical, since we both need to step away, but I'm still reading if you choose to reply anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy and I have made peace, read all about it if you like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

How ironic- the Wikipedia page about edit warring gets edit-warred on. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Look at the history - it was BRD'd on, nothing more. (There happened to be a few instances of BRD in quick succession, but they were not related, and there was no redoing of changes, except in one instance where I redid one since the previous edit summary made clear that the reverter had misseen what was done.) And now instead of discussing the (really rather minor) matters that are the source of disagreement, people are shouting at each other. Reason: people doing the "R" part of BRD think that the "D" part doesn't apply to them. If someone has made a change (particularly when the change was explained rationally) then anyone undoing it should explain equally rationally why they don't agree with it. To fail to do so is extremely disrespectful to a fellow editor, and is bound to lead to bad feeling, as here. Victor Yus (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, more like BRRR'd on, as there were several reverts on the page, counting the ones with different content. That's still edit warring if you revert the same page a bunch of times, even if the content is different each time. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidence please.... can you provide a link to the user diffs for the user you seem to think "revert(ed) the same page a bunch of times" in such a way that constitutes edit warring? Here are the user diffs for myself. Alternatively, if you are treating editors X Y and Z as a single entity for your analysis, then please quote the text from this policy that supports that arithmetic. If you like, I'd be glad to visit the DR forum of your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two interesting questions here. First, outside of the details of this particular situation, is it ever appropriate to treat editors X Y and Z as a single entity for the purposes of determining edit warring? There is the obvious case of confirmed sockpuppetry or meat puppetry, but outside of that? Yes. There is a broad consensus among administrators that in some situations you can indeed treat editors X Y and Z as a single entity for the purposes of determining edit warring,[3] and there are a couple of related essays on the topic.[4][5] This of course does not say anything about whether this particular situation qualifies.

The second question concerns the claim that this particular situation was not edit warring. On the one hand we have two editors who are heavily involved in a content dispute claiming the there was no edit warring. On the other hand we have a page that is protected from editing because of edit warring.[6] I see no attempts to claim that the admin was wrong or the protection should be lifted -- not even a request on his talk page[7] -- and I see no disagreement at WP:RPP [8] or at our entry at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.[9]. Given this evidence, I think it fair to put the burden of proof on those who claim that there was no edit war and are demanding proof that there was. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy, you've got a busted link to the admin opinion on topicNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Q1) FYI, it was extensively debated right here, also, at least once. See the archive link in an earlier comment of mine.

Re Q2) Another logic error. A third party's right result due to a wrong reason is not evidence of guilt.

Illustration. They built a new freeway close by to relieve congestion. A ton of people started using it, within the speedlimit. The traffic volume led some authority to correctly reduce the speed limit, even though they had the false impression there had been a lot of illegal speeding. A right result, due to a wrong reason, does not shift the presumption of innocence. Nor is a falsely accused speeder obligated to appeal the overall reduction in speed limit before they can even get their foot in the door to challenge a specious ticket, carelessly given without real evidence. In addition, when the ticket is merely a warning ticket, the accused has no motive to spend time producing evidence that there is no evidence. BTW, was your Q2 really in accord with our agreement for peace yesterday? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It was. You asked a question, and I answered it in a calm, rational manner. I flatly deny making any logic error, but I can see that attempting to answer the question was an error. I am unwatching this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it wasn't because I asked someone else that question. Glad we're putting the stick back down. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The error was of tone, not of logic. NE Ent 01:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was his best tone & content effort in this thread yet and I appreciate that effort, even though I still disagree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, poll at village pump

FYI, while my "bikini" proposal (above) is still open, the discussion has inspired me to post a Village pump poll about what I see as the bigger question. The poll relates to writing across all policy pages, not just this one. Please consider participating in the poll. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution phase one: agreeing on a stable pre-edit-war version.

OK, it looks like everyone is now on board with the basic rules set forth in WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. I would like to open the discussion as to what we want to decide the content of this page should be now that we don't have the distraction of an ongoing edit war.

The first question is this: did the temporary protection freeze the page in The Wrong Version, and if so, is there a better before-the-edit-war version that we can agree on while discussing what the final version should be? I propose that we temporarily roll it back to the stable pre-edit-war version as edited by Hyacinth at 02:33, 30 April 2013.[10] here are the differences between that version and the current version:[11] The two differences between the current version and the Hyacinth version were added during the edit war; the Hyacinth version of those two sentences was stable at least as far back as 2010. So, in the interest of restoring the article to the last stable version while we discuss the WP:BOLD changes that triggered the edit war, and following BRD instead of BD or BRRD, can we go back to the Hyacinth version (plus the Pp-semi-indef template, of course)? If not, do you propose another pre-edit-war version? After we decide this, we can discuss the proposed changes, so please don't jump the gun and focus on this specific question. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with that, although, as I think I said somewhere up higher in this mess, I didn't like Hyacinth's tag. The protection template shouldn't be restored, though, as the article is not protected at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with going back one more edit if nobody objects. If anyone does object, I would say leave it for phase two where everyone seeks consensus and we all live on the Big Rock Candy Mountain, eating that Rainbow Stew. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no edit-war, as noted above. People who think there was clearly have such a warped understanding of what an "edit-war" is that they have no business contributing to this page (which is, after all, the policy page on edit wars). I'm certainly not going to contribute to it any more while a group of such [expletive deleted]s are attempting to control it and to block even the most minor improvements without giving any substantial reasons (except "the page is never going to be perfect, so there's no point trying to make it better", which is among the most absurd things I've heard on Wikipedia). Plonk, etc. Victor Yus (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That again demonstrates the problem—there is too much chatter about whether an edit war occurred, and whether an editor said something silly. If someone has a proposal with brief reasoning, please post it in a new section without commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(A) I don't care which version is used,

(B) Whatever new ideas are added below, the proposal in the Bikini thread above is still open. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone object to restoring the stable pre-edit-war version as edited by Hyacinth at 02:33, 30 April 2013? This would not preclude making other changes in the future, some of which are under discussion in the section above. --Guy Macon (talk)

Yes. Wikipedia is determined by consensus, which does not mean old versions have greater weight than newer ones. What needs to happen, what's supposed to happen is editors start discussing content and stop with quibbling about temporal sequences and classification of edits as edit warring or not editing warring or whatever. JW did their job in protecting the wrong version; now it's up to editors to collectively, collabortively figure out what the right version is. NE Ent 02:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "stable version" on Wikipedia. Disagree? Fine, show us the policy. Federales (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? You need a link to a policy page to tell you that an article that has had no edits for three years is stable and one that has had a hundred edits in the last couple of hours is not? I will get right back to you on that one. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You're the one claiming that such a thing exists, so you have the burden. But it doesn't exist. There is NO policy that supports what you are attempting to do here. This proposal of yours can be safely ignored. Federales (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is a policy on this. It's called WP:CONSENSUS. I made a proposal. I made sure everyone interested had plenty of time to respond. I asked if there were any objections. If everyone had said yes, then I would have had consensus for the change. Someone objected, so I have no consensus and won't make the change. And yes, there have been plenty of edit wars on Wikipedia where everyone agreed to roll it back to a stable version while they talk it over. And plenty where they didn't. As for whether stable versions exist, yes they do. There are actually things that exist without being mentioned in any Wikipedia policy. Any reasonable person will agree that a page that has had no edits for over a year is stable and one that is getting an edit every minute is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution phase two: defining and counting the positions

OK, we have no consensus for a rollback to a stable version, so the page stays as it is. I would now like to get a feeling for how many positions we are talking about here. NewsAndEventsGuy has defined his position (and I must say is doing a fine job of arguing for it. I encourage everyone to read his arguments. If he gets enough support this content dispute is settled.) My position is also well defined; I say leave it like it was before the content dispute/edit war. I don't want to count supporters quite yet though; I would first like to ask if anyone disagrees with both of those positions and can accurately define another position. It might even turn out that NewsAndEventsGuy and I are both OK with the alternative. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy - yes or no - Do you agree there is a grammar flaw in the sentence I called out in my bikini thread? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to hijack this section. I am trying to find out how many positions this dispute has. You already have a section where you are arguing your case. You don't need to argue it in multiple sections. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no hijack intended.... since you've put in so much effort not agreeing/disagreeing that grammar error even exists, I only meant to ask you to answer it.... up there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

NewsAndEventGuy is entitled to respond as they wish; the original poster of a section does not own it or control the format / content. Besides consenus is reached through discussion, not voting. NE Ent 19:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an idea... if Guy wants to argue against N&EG's proposed changes, maybe he should confine the discussion to that section instead of starting a new one in an attempt to derail the discussion (and then telling N&EG to stay out of it). Federales (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not even going to address your misinformation. WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The ironic thing about WP:IAD, of course is that linking to it is inherently self-contradictory. NE Ent 20:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's funny NE! Anyway, I support what Guy was trying to do here. There were multiple attempted edits over different text since April 30, after all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)