Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2025 January 27

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 27

Editing protocol in absence of consensus

 Courtesy link: Alison Weir (activist)

Is it permissible to delete text from a Wikipedia page that is is extended-confirmed-protected without first discussing the edit on the Talk page, not to mention seeking consensus for it? Kenfree (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean, as long as it's a reasonable edit in good faith (which is presumed unless there's a glaring problem), of course it is, per WP:BOLD and WP:EDITCONSENSUS. You don't need to seek pre-approval for every individual edit - it might be a good idea if the edit is obviously going to be controversial, but it's still not required. The hard part is what happens after someone objects, but generally the thing to do then is to follow WP:BRD and seek consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Well in my opinion this was not a good faith edit, but here's the problem: I can't revert it because it is a protected page and I haven't made enough edits to qualify as a "confirmed-extended" editor. The text in question was introduced at my request using the edit request protocol, and this other editor, with no advance discussion, just swoops in out of the blue and deletes important parts of it. How do I, lacking the power to revert, object to this? Kenfree (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You can start a discussion on the talk page, notifying the editor about it. And remember to assume good faith because the edit I assume you're talking about is 100% good faith Ultraodan (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Really? Truncating a direct quote from a citation because an editor, with no citation or other justification, or any prior discussion on the talk page, considers it too laudatory, and leaves awkward grammar and inappropriate punctuation behind , is "good faith"? Kenfree (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Kenfree, you must assume that the other editor is acting in good faith unless you have powerful evidence to the contrary. Discuss the matter with the other editor involved a non-confrontational way, and if that does not work, there are various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Kenfree (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

In asking Help Desk questions, it helps responders help you if you link the actual article and edit(s) in question; namely:

• Alison Weir (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).     (Added courtesy link above as well.)

So your question appears to be about whether this recent edit by Scratchinghead (talk · contribs) removing some of the content previously added on your behalf by Ultraodan (talk · contribs) in response to your ER of 11 Jan. was justifiable or not. I have no reason to doubt their good faith, as reasons were given in the edit summary. Of possible additional relevance: some of the references included in the content added per your ER are under discussion at the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Please explain this to me: if a direct quote is provided from a secondary source , that fits the criteria you yourself referenced in the talk page. You expressly wrote there that the personal opinion of Wikipedia editors is NOT a valid source for determining the validity of a claim about a living person. And yet here User:Scratchinghead deletes the bulk of the quote because he personally considers it too laudatory. How does this not violate the very protocol you were insisting on? Kenfree (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Just looking at they edit and what was removed seems to be simply WP:puffery which is not appropriate. It doesn’t matter if it is a reliable, secondary source or not. Now there is a secondary question if Middle East is appropriate versus PI which was also removed. You are not powerless, as you’ve already demonstrated here and the talk page. The reason for the protection on the page is to protect it from various threats and while it can get in the way of well intentioned editors, it does more good than harm. Also, because it would protect you from making a bad revert as a newer editor. Generally speaking, even if you could change it back, you should not, but instead take it to the talk page, which you are already fully able to do. See WP:BRD for more details. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Why do I have to take things to the talk page first, whereas User:Scratchinghead does not? That editor makes changes without consulting anyone. I'm sorry to say that I am inclined to agree with the seasoned WP editor who opined that template protocols constitute newbie biting... all editors are equal, but some are more equal than others, it seems..... Kenfree (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

They do, when it reaches that part of WP:BRD. You with your edit request did a bold edit, Scratchinghead partially reverted/altered it. Now since you disagree with their edits you both need to discuss it on the talk page.

You needing to go to the talk page first is not because of BRD, but because of the protection. Many contentious pages are protected to avoid edit warring in sanctioned topics. Ultraodan (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Well then the policy fails in that regard,because what it really means is that only extended-confirmed editors can edit war, and all others need not enter the fray, because they are prohibited from doing so. The discussion on the Talk page of Alison Weir regarding the validity of this book review as a citation source had a rough consensus that it was viable. Yet User:Scratchinghead, who did not participate in at all, ignores this assessment and determines with no other authority than his own personal opinion that it is not credible and guts the quote from it, leaving the quotation marks which now make it seem that the source was not calling her a Middle East expert, but rather a QUOTE Middle East expert...as if these are air quotes by the source. I really don't see how such autocratic editing can be defended at Wikipedia ....It flies in the face of editorial consensus building. Kenfree (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected: the Wikipedia:BRD policy does not fail, rather you, User:Ultraodan, fail to understand the policy. The policy states very clearly that BRD fails when the page is protected. The Alison Weir (activist) page is protected. Ergo, the use of BRD on that page as an editorial tactic is out of the question. If you think about it, you will recognize why this must be so. The only reason a bold edit can be countenanced in the first place is that all interested or potentially interested editors have the power to revert it if they find it, shall we say, too bold! So the Wikipedia:BRD policy has no relevance at all here....it simply doesn't apply. Kenfree (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not policy, merely an explanatory essay about an optional dispute resolution process, just one of many. To an extent, you are mixing up two things here, one: the nature of EC protection, which allows others to make bold edits but not you, and two: finding consensus. To the first, though protection may seem unfair to you, it is actually protecting you as a new user, because if you were to make a bold edit the way you wish to more than once, you might be at risk of sanctions due to BLP restrictions and especially, the contentious topic sanctions in effect on that article. That said, it may feel like an unfair restriction to you now, but for a contentious issue with a content dispute like this one, not that much will change when you reach EC level. For example, if you think it's about getting your licks in last so your bold edit "wins", it really isn't; it's about talking it out on the Talk page (policy) to gain consensus (policy) about disputed content. And that is what you are already doing now, so that's great.

It's true that a recent editor made a bold edit which you cannot, but think a minute: there are other editors on the Talk page who could have reverted that edit but have not; that is probably not an accident. The bottom line is consensus; by far the best way to get your preferred content into the article is to have consensus for it, and you gain consensus by persuading other editors to agree with you on the Talk page. That has not happened yet, and it seems at the moment there is rather a small consensus against your position, but that could change. (Note: the true bottom-line is Pillar Two of Wikipedia's core principles, namely, WP:Neutral point of view; but for now, consensus is what you should focus on.) You could try engaging more editors (*not* by cherry-picking them, but by appropriate notification) for example and maybe that will swing the tide. Your gaining EC status will not affect consensus-formation one iota, but it will affect your ability to run into the quicksand at full speed instead of stepping carefully around it, so don't be so hasty to bemoan the protection, because it is protecting you as well. Keep working at consensus formation in discussion; that is the way forward. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sir, I've been continuously getting notifications of him saying that i am not following the rules so i went to sort it out at the talk page and im pretty sure most of the issues are solved. Thanks folks ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your good faith in this reply, but you are still failing to acknowledge the unequivocal statement in WP:BRD that BRD "fails" on a protected page. BRD is only approved for use on unprotected pages where all interested editors are on an equal footing (i. e., have equal power to revert) as I elaborated above. It is an entirely inappropriate strategy on a protected page, where a priori consensus for an edit is the only reasonable and permissible approach. Kenfree (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

BRD is not a strategy, it's a warning to those who get reverted to not re-revert. CMD (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, then you tell me what the meaning of "WP:BRD fails on a proteced page" (paraphrased) means then....I'm all ears! Kenfree (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

My attempt: " 'Bold edit, revert the edit, discuss what to do' is not physically possible when one of the editors isn't in a position to edit the page, so you'll have to try a different way of reaching consensus". It's a suggested way to reach consensus and avoid repeatedly reverting each other's edits, that's all.

By the way, codes like WP:BRD or whatever are simply shortcuts to frequently used locations, which also get used as shorthand. The fact that something has a shortcut doesn't necessarily mean it's a rule—to find that out, you have to check what the page you've landed on says about itself.

In this case, it lands on an essay: someone's thoughts which others have found helpful and maybe added to. Musiconeologist (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

History merge?

I received a talk page message that Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) that I created is under proposed deletion. Now I have nothing against "Vitalstatistix (disambiguation)" being deleted, I agree with the nominator that there is no need for such a disambiguation page. But I didn't create it as a disambiguation page, I created it as a stand-alone article at Vitalstatistix and later changed it into a redirect to List of Asterix characters. Someone else later moved it to Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) and created another page at Vitalstatistix. I want to preserve the attribution history by merging the histories of these pages together so my original edits won't get lost when Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) is deleted. How can I do that?