Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2013/June

Edit war
Can you like make an animated GIF showing 2 edits also — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan5000000000 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Single bikinis and multiple beaches - proposed grammar change to better explain existing policy
You've entered the realm of gnomish grammar. I would like to address grammar errors in the following sentence to better explain (not change) existing policy
 * "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material."

I will illustrate the grammar errors with the following silliness
 * ''A bikini covers the curves of girls, whether it is on the same beach or a different beach.
 * ''An apple hangs from the branches of trees, whether it is in the same orchard or a different orchard.


 * alright I know, I know.... technically, a bikini only covers some of a girl's curves, and for that matter it could be just lying on the beach and not covering anyone's curves....

GRAMMAR ERROR 1 - Subject in singular / predicate in plural

With grammar error 1 flagged
 * A (single) bikini covers the curves (plural) of girls (plural), whether....
 * A (single) apple hangs from the branches (plural) of trees (plural), whether...

Proposed fix for error 1
 * A bikini covers a girl's curves, whether..... 
 * An apple hangs from a branch of a tree, whether....

Proposed fix of grammar error 1 applied to our actual text
 * current "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors....
 * Better "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses any action of another editor....
 * As you think about this, please note that elsewhere we have other text that talks about a series of reverts. This sentence, however, is just defining "revert" in the singular.  Fixing this grammar will (hopefully) help people quickly learn the policy; it does not change the operation of it at all.

GRAMMAR ERROR 2 - Subject in singular / subordinate clause in plural

With error 1 fixed, and error 2 not fixed and we'll just ignore the dangling pronoun "it"
 * A bikini covers a girl's curves, whether it is on the same beach or a different beach.
 * An apple hangs from a branch of a tree, whether it is in the same orchard or a different orchard. 

As for our actual text, grammar error 2 really stands out after we fix grammar error 1 like I did in this demonstration edit that I already self reverted.

Proposed fix of grammar error 2 applied to our actual text
 * Just delete the phrase "whether involving the same or different material" which was added to Line 31 (be sure to scroll down) without any discussion.  DON'T REPEAT MY MISTAKE - Please stop and think.  When Victor boldly deleted that phrase, it was I who reverted, erroneously thinking it was changing the policy.  But as he pointed out, this phrase is properly preserved elsewhere in sentences that are talking about a series of reverts.  In the sentence Victor called to our attention, the page defines "revert" in the singular.   A plural subordinate clause attached to a sentence in the singular is not at all helpful if you want newbies to quickly figure out how this works.

CLOSING
 * Fixing grammar should not be this hard.  If anyone is opposed please have a reason on the merits and don't just demand an RFC over grammar.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support changing "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors.... to "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses any action of another editor.... ; would like to see a simple, direct suggestion for the second edit. NE Ent 11:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest.
 * TEXT OF ENTIRE PROPOSED EDIT
 * Including the two unchanged sentences that talk about a series of reverts, here is the whole original proposal
 * The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period..... An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.....A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors any action of another editor, in whole or in part , whether involving the same or different material .
 * Later I saw two more improvements, (A) predicate should be both singular and plural since one revert can undo the work of multiple editors, and (B) "in whole or in part" is legal jargon that impedes clear writing.
 * This is the current modified proposed
 * The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period..... An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.....A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material any amount of editing by one or more other editors. 
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. It is inconsistent with other parts of the policy, the phrase "any amount of editing" is downright weird, and "one or more other editors" is inherently redundant.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23, Before I ask about the lesser objections you raise first let's work on the big fish.... I spent a LOT of time trying to be 100% consistent with everything else. Please articulate how you think I screwed up? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel your time is being wasted, but let me get to the heart of the issue. I have no problem with the current language in the policy, at least none in the areas that you've expressed concerns. Therefore, my motivation to parse your proposals is almost nil. Although I understand that almost everything can theoretically be improved, I see no reason to spend so much time trying to improve something that seems fine to me. I spend a LOT of time (no offense, just being a bit playful) applying the policy. I am a frequent patroller of WP:ANEW. How the policy reads matters to me as an admin, and although I can see that some editors are confused about the policy, first, I take that into account when I evaluate a report and, second, there are editors who are confused about many Wikipedia policies. For example, your goal of making the language less legalistic is conceptually a laudable goal. However, if you read through other policies at Wikipedia, you'll find that many (most?) are written as if they were legal regulations. Why should this policy be different? More important, though, sometimes the reason that something is stated in a more legalistic fashion is it's really hard to communicate the concept in another manner - not necessarily impossible, but tough. So, I will no doubt continue to fight you in your quest to change this policy, but I can't spend a lot of time discussing it with you. That may seem wrong to you - and I can understand why - but that's just the way it is. This is not like changing an article, and even if I don't formally object or provide you with what you believe to be satisfactory reasons, unless you have a clear consensus for your change, I reserve the right to revert it. If, on the other hand, I believe there is a clear consensus, I will, of course, defer to it or challenge it in some other way.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't feel like my time is being wasted, except by I-just-don't-like it responses. In reply to "(most?) are written as if they were legal regulations. Why should this policy be different?" my answer is to ask whether, when you set out to wash all the dishes, why do wash the first dish?  I mean, they are ALL dirty, so why should the first one be any different?  As for legalisms, a many bar associations are currently giving prestigious awards to their members who de-jargonize writing and replace it with clear, everyday language.


 * Most importantly, evidence that this policy is "broken" enough that it would benefit the project to work on its writing is abundant - just think of all the confusion people seem to constantly have about it!  Does it help the project to drive off gnomes who want to improve the writing to try to lessen that confusion?


 * So now we are back to the specifics objections you raised. Did you withdraw them and replace them with some form of Just-don't-like, or do you stand by them?  If you stand by your substantive objections then, for the second time, please explain exactly in what way my proposal is "inconsistent" with some other part of the policy.


 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that one editor is prepared to devote extended time to discussing changes that they LIKE does not mean other editors have to continually or repeatedly engage with that editor. The simple statement that "the current policy is fine" is sufficient unless some evidence can be presented to the contrary. Experience shows that any statement can and will be misinterpreted, so the quest to find the perfect wording for a policy is ultimately pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean, except for the evidence that three different editors want have already said that modifying a sentence in the SINGULAR with a PLURAL subordinate clause is nonsensical? Surely we're not so mired in dysfunction that we refuse to fix grammar?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed edit is hardly a simple grammar fix. the current text reads
 * A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.

A singular/plural grammar fix would be
 * A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the action of another editor, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.

or
 * "Reverts" are any edits (or administrative actions) that reverse the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.

But instead you proposed
 * A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses any action of another editor, in whole or in part.

That's a significant change that requires consensus, as does your second proposed edit. Let's talk about consensus for a moment. Right off the top of my head I can list three editors who basically say that the policy is not broken, that the policy does not need fixing, and that changes to the policy are OK to propose and discuss but that any changes to the policy must first demonstrate a clear consensus. By my count the three are:

Bbb23: Guy Macon: Johnuniq:
 * "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." 15:25, 4 May
 * "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." 23:35, 14 May
 * "I have no problem with the current language in the policy, at least none in the areas that you've expressed concerns.... Although I understand that almost everything can theoretically be improved, I see no reason to spend so much time trying to improve something that seems fine to me." 19:57, 18 May
 * "I have no problem with the current language in the policy, at least none in the areas that you've expressed concerns.... Although I understand that almost everything can theoretically be improved, I see no reason to spend so much time trying to improve something that seems fine to me." 19:57, 18 May
 * "I have no problem with the current language in the policy, at least none in the areas that you've expressed concerns.... Although I understand that almost everything can theoretically be improved, I see no reason to spend so much time trying to improve something that seems fine to me." 19:57, 18 May
 * "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." 11:52, 14 May
 * "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." 00:32, 15 May
 * (Revert is here: Diff1 Difference between the "Federales" version he reverted to and the pre-edit-war "Hyacinth" version is here: Diff2.)

Finally, I would like to speak to the following: "I do not think you have adequately stated the basis for your objection", "you have not addressed the matter-of-fact question I posed", "You have still not addressed the question I am now asking in this thread for the third time... do you agree?... from here your long remarks ... looks nonresponsive.... If you don't agree please educate me.", "No one here has answered [my] question."

As has been pointed out before, nobody is required to answer any of your questions much less answer them to your satisfaction. A simple "The policy isn't broken. Don't fix it" followed by silence is a perfectly valid answer. The burden is on you to convince others that your proposed changes are an improvement. The burden is not on them to convince you that your proposed changes are not an improvement. See

Consensus (second paragraph),

Warnock's dilemma,

Silence and consensus,

Silence and consensus, and

Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies.

You appear to have a roughly evenly split consensus for and against your proposed changes. You need to get that up to a clear majority. The traditional ways of doing that are convincing people to change their vote or running an RfC to make the pool of voters considerably larger. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I want to acknowledge the many hours of labor the admins here donate to keep wiki going and reduce EWs. Thanks!  It's understandable that you know the policy in your blood, regardless of verbiage.  It is to be expected that you see it as "not broken".  However, this effort is on behalf of newcomers, so that the text is easy to digest one time through.  Is there a nonzero chance better writing would reduce questions and conflicts or increase ed retention and satisfaction?  Then it's worth doing!  A subordinate clause addressing multiple things is nonsense when it modifies a sentence in the singular.  Is it not obvious that a newcomer would trip at that sentence?  How can one apple hang from two different trees or two places on the same tree?


 * Re to Guy, that is not how I understand consensus.


 * It helps when eds who think "I just don't like it", actually say that. Of course, its human nature to try to think up a more tangible reason, if you can back it up, fine.  If not, then these "tangible" reasons are really coverups for like/dontlike.  As such they are an unfounded WP:VAGUEWAVE which starts to get into WP:ETIQUETTE danger zones (i.e., "Do not make misrepresentations.")  If your reason is like/dontlike - say so.


 * WP:DISRUPT is unhappy when an ed
 * "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" and " repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits"


 * So when eds provide answers, do the answers have to be to my satisfaction?  Yes, if the Q is a followup to distinguish a real reason from a WP:VAGUEWAVE. per DISRUPT and ETIQUETTE above .   Once the true reasons are on the table, how do we measure consensus?  By mere majority vote of like/dontlike?  No!  Rather, by strength of argument.  In a recent edit summary, Guy cited WP:TALKDONTREVERT which says
 * "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever."


 * IN SUM I have identified a grammar error.  Actually more than one.  2 other eds have tried to strike the plural subordinate clause from the sentence in the singular.  Arthur has chimed in on talk in support.  It is understandable that the admins who live and breath this policy on the boards are hard to persuade it needs changing.  However, its on behalf of poor regular ed schmucks like myself for whom I wish to improve the expression of existng policy.  If we can help people "get it" and get it even more easily than they now do, they'll stick around longer and push the edit button more often.   I note that the wiki research wing has been trying to figure out how to increase ed retention.  That's what I'm interested in here.  JustLike arguments in favor of retaining grammar errors are, IMO, obstacles to newcomers and should carry "no weight whatsoever"
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * At a minimum we should strike the plural subordinate clause which will not change the operation of the policy
 * The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period..... An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.....A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material .
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello NAEG. You argue that there is a 'plural subordinate clause.' By this I think you mean an extra occurrence of "whether involving the same or different material" that can be harmlessly removed. If you go to the policy page and search for 'same or different' I don't think there is any excessive duplication of this phrase. When you quoted from the policy above you included three dots (...) in two places to signify that you skipped some sentences. If you had included an excerpt from the policy that did not skip anything you might not think that 'same or different' occurs too often. It is reasonable that the word 'reverse' or 'revert' wherever it occurs should be accompanied by 'same or different' within the *same sentence*. Your change will not be user-friendly if it increases the number of misreadings of the policy by regular editors. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ed, that is the same error I made when I restored this objectionable phrase without super extra careful thought first.


 * The sentence we are discussing here defines "revert" in terms of a single edit. It might be the ed's only edit, ever, on the entire article.


 * The other two sentences I excerpted - the ones I do not wish to change and that talk about a "series" of reverts - are explaining that there is no exception for reverting the same thing twice, nor is there an exception for reverting two different things a single time. It is absurd to address alleged exceptions based on multiple edits in a sentence that is simply defining how a single edit can be a revert.  "One apple is still an apple whether it hangs from two trees or two places on the same tree."   Does that make sense to you?


 * Like you, I missed this nuance when the objectionable phrase was first struck. And note this - the objectionable phrase was added to this sentence without the slightest bit of discussion or consensus.  See this at Line 31 (be sure to scroll down).


 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You would have to use the notation of formal logic to avoid any possible ambiguity. In your comments above you seem to be especially concerned with singular versus plural. We are used to this present policy language and many people rely on it. Would you say that the first half of the apples *is* in the basket or *are* in the basket? You have called out Slim Virgin's edit of 28 October 2010 for objection, but I don't see anything wrong with it. If you stare at anything long enough you will start seeing problems. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * NewsAndEventsGuy proposed edit is not a simple grammar fix. The constant questioning ("Do you agree there is a grammar flaw in the sentence I called out?") is using a leading question in an attempt to make it look like a grammar fix, but it isn't one. The current text reads:


 * A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.


 * A simple grammar fix would be


 * A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the action of another editor, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.


 * or


 * "Reverts" are any edits (or administrative actions) that reverse the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.


 * But instead of the above, which are simple grammar fixes, NewsAndEventsGuy proposed the following


 * A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses any action of another editor, in whole or in part.


 * That is a stealth change of policy masquerading as a grammar fix, and as a change of policy, needs a strong consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. How is removing an arguably unnecessary clause in whole or in part, changing policy? NE Ent 21:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like an answer this too, and while you think about it, please bear in mind that the policy will STILL say
 * "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period."
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
 * because those two sentences would not change.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Ed
 * (A) "Would you say that the first half of the apples *is* in the basket or *are* in the basket?"  The phrase "of the apples" is an adjective phrase which modifies the noun "half", an that word happens to be the sentence's subject.  Since "half" is singular, I would say "My half IS in the basket".
 * (B) Let's translate. You wrote "We are used to this present policy language"
 * we = Us established eds who already know what this page means and fie on all you other people who are just trying to learn this today See WP:PLEASEBITE
 * are used to = WP:WEJUSTLIKE
 * this present policy language = grammatically flawed and awkward sentence structure, which we treat as though it were fixed in a paper encylopedia
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)


 * Endorse NewsAndEventsGuy's proposed change as specified by Guy Macon ("A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses any action of another editor, in whole or in part.""), as it enhances clarity, removes ambiguity, and fixes grammar. Federales (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Endorse "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses any action of another editor, in whole or in part.".  First, we really must fix elementary grammatical errors. Second, the phrase "whether involving the same or different material" has no meaning when attached to this sentence.  Same or different from what (the sound of one hand clapping)?  The purpose of the sentence is to define what the word "revert" means.  The "same or different" thing is a separate issue, to do with how reverts are counted.  It should be in separate sentence, for example "In counting reverts, it makes no difference whether they involve the same or different material.". Zerotalk 09:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)