Wikipedia talk:Stable version

Idiotic definition

Ya'll know that this definition:

The "stable version" is the most recent version of an article that has existed for any period of time without being contested or disrupted.

makes absolutely no sense what so ever, right? "For any period of time" basically means that ANY version is a "stable version". "For any period of time" does include... two seconds or whatever. Who wrote this garbage? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I’m not sure why you’re so irate. You’re absolutely correct. The pre-dispute revision is the “stable” revision, in an administrative context. It does not matter how long it has been “stable” for. “For any period of time” is key because the phrase “stable version” is often used as a rationale to revert in content disputes, which is wholly unsupported by (and contrary to) actual policy. Restoring a stable version is a specific admin action authorized by policy, nothing more. Outside of this narrow context, it is not a legitimate concept. Bold changes are encouraged as policy, and stonewalling bold changes for no specific reason other than “stablity” is disruptive. So a non-admin invoking the “stable version”, as Icewhiz did here, is not a legitimate reason to revert. Nothing within policy or practice supports this concept. Many people don’t understand this, and that’s the specific point this explanatory page is explaining. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  I did not assert STABLE as a rationale - I made a request - " Please discuss on the talk page, as opposed to edit-warring over content in the STABLE version of this article". My rationale was - "Already discussed elsewhere. Reported in Polish media as well - so UNDUE has no legs here." - referring to RSN, Rafał Pankowski's talk, and additional reporting in Polish language media (relevant in regards to UNDUE). Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: That's all well and good, but I presume that you typing "STABLE" in all caps like that was what led Marek to refer to this page, which he seems to have misconstrued in his frustration. This page is an explanation of an administrative action users might witness from time to time, nothing more. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought I had heard from some other admin or two that in determining WP:ONUS in between two versions of content the status quo pre-dispute is relevant in regards to no-consensus outcomes. I also think I have heard that the version that should be on the page should be the pre-dispute version until the dispute has been resolved (e.g. via agreement, RfC, DRN, etc.). All that being said - I may have been misinformed or remembering wrongly. Obviously the status-quo is not an rationale for an edit in and of itself.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD is the overarching norm, so in theory you have it right (well, as long as there's a legitimate dispute beyond "status quo" of course). But in practice it can be a lot more convoluted. There's the caveat that BRD is not mandatory and a user can throw it in the trash and revert a reversion whenever they feel like. If a such a user does start an edit war like this, from a policy perspective both parties are guilty, but the original reverter is at a disadvantage as they will breach 3RR first. So in practice you can have the person who started the edit war report the original "R" in BRD and have them blocked, while the instigator remains unblocked, and that's an appropriately-handled edit war. I suppose that's the intent of this particular point of policy, it allows admins to go back and enforce BRD at their discretion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, thanks. That makes more sense. Sorry about getting irate here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: No worries. I've taken it as an opportunity to make some improvements that hopefully make the message more clear! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Overstated?

@User:Swarm, thanks for this useful essay.

The boldface warning, however, is at best in need of explicit qualification(s):

Editors who attempt to enforce a stable version may be blocked from editing without warning.

I wanted to make reference to this piece in a discussion, but I didn't because I was concerned it would be interpreted as a threat that I did not want to make (a threat, moreover, that I'm pretty sure has almost no actual teeth).

If I don't hear back from you soon, I will remove this language myself. Otherwise, happy to discuss further!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Patrick, thank you for the query. As an explanatory essay this page is meant to be an uncontentiously factual explanation of objective policy, nothing more and nothing less. The excerpt in question serves as a standing warning, and omitting the explicit articulation of such a warning would not change the fact that it is a factual statement beyond any level of debate. To claim that it is a “threat without teeth” is to reject the assertion that it is uncontentious policy that is being explained objectively, without room for opinion. It is a simple factual statement and nothing about it should be contentious in any way whatsoever. Yes, it is strongly stated, but only because if there is a single takeaway editors should get from this page, it is that. That is quite literally the key point of the entire concept. If there is a specific good faith point of contention underlying this belief to the contrary, it would be entirely unclear where exactly such a sentiment would stem from. You would need to present an objective policy justification as to why the statement isn’t factually true beyond any and all reproach, which is, of course impossible, because it is simply a reflection of the reality of Wikipedia’s policies. I believe the page amply cites the underlying policy, but if you can provide a more specific articulation of your understanding of why that wouldn’t be the case, I would be more than happy to address any such concerns with specific policy basis and update the page to make the uncontentious factual basis of the statement more obvious. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response! I agree with everything in the essay except the boldfaced claim. In many non-Wikipedia contexts, historical stability is something that often does carry weight. A lot of the time, I imagine, all that is necessary is to politely explain the policy to any editor attempting to make such an argument. They probably just don't know any better. And even in cases where someone continues to insist upon this invalid argument, would there not need to be at least two explicit warnings or a clear pattern of disruptive behavior before anyone even starts to consider a ban?

If my reasoning here is sound, the objection could be addressed by simply removing the "without warning" (although I'm sure it could be addressed in other ways as well).

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yours is an understandable viewpoint. However, it represents the very common misconception that is the basis for needing this essay. Historical stability is not, in fact, given any weight over a single bold edit according to policy, none whatsoever. In a vacuum, stability on its own represents a silent consensus. Meaning that, on Wikipedia, the most fundamental system of government is community consensus, and that when there are no changes or objections to a status quo, that is automatically interpreted as being supported by consensus. This shallow, implied form of consensus no longer exists when there is an edit or objection. Beyond that concept, not only does stability actually hold no weight, but the opposite is true, in that bold changes are encouraged as a policy. There is no competing policy or guideline endorsing stability vs aggressive changes, and impeding aggressive changes which are supported by policy in favor of a concept of “stability” which is not supported by policy is a very, very direct policy violation. Therefore editors reverting purely on “stability” are very straightforwardly stonewalling edits which are supported by policy, while relying on an argument that has zero policy justification. This is blockable under the disruptive editing policy. As for warnings preceding blocking for such a policy violation, it is a common practice. But any block may be issued without warning and again that is simply the fact of the matter. It may or may not not be the best course of action on a case by case basis. But it may happen, which is a simple fact. And that is all the statement says. It is unclear why you would think that a warning should be given, but would seek to delete potentially the only warning that editors will receive. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I would still add a "persistently" if you're committed to retaining "without warning". The essay appears to assume a context of bad-faith stonewalling. There are people, though, who genuinely believe themselves to be making a good argument, and who simply need an explanation. And just overall, I just don't see the need for such a threatening tone. Patrick (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, I have added the “persistently” for now. A block is unlikely to happen without good faith education against good faith misguidance, and in that context a block without warning is unlikely to happen without the problem being “persistent”, so I have no problem with that wording. While the bluntness was originally the point, perhaps the wording should be expanded even further to convey the nuance of this discussion. Thank you for your feedback and patience. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)