Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 14:46, 10 June 2016 (Reverted to revision 724396961 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk): Rv. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about "verifiability" as a concept. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about "verifiability" as a concept at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Questions Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article? At Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support. Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me? No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject. Do sources have to be in English? No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:Translators available. I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it? No. Misplaced Pages includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough. I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it? Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material. Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source? No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published. Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual. What if the source is biased? Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Misplaced Pages articles must maintain a neutral point of view. Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation? No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material. Are sources required in all articles? Adding sources is the best practice, but prior efforts to officially require at least one source have been rejected by the community. See, e.g., discussions in January 2024 and March 2024. Are reliable sources required to name the author? No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement. Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references? No. Misplaced Pages editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Misplaced Pages article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography. Does anyone read the sources? Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

The Verifiability page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the lead section of the verifiability policy over the years. If you want to discuss changing its wording, please first read the 2012 request for comments and the previous discussion about the first sentence. Thank you for your cooperation.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

Archives by topic First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011) First sentence (April–August 2011) 2012 RfC about the lead section

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

WP:NEWSBLOG clarification request

A number of news organizations, such as Forbes and CNN, support columnist blogs, but exercise little, if any, editorial control. I specifically like taxgirl's blog at Forbes. She's a tax expert, but her column should not be considered BLP-reliable. I think this is common enough to justify clarification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

From personal experience, I sportsblogged for Newsweek for a short time, I know that blog submissions are rarely scrutinized. My writing was copy edited but the content was never verified....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Arthur, I'm not necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with you, but I'd like to hear what exactly that you think needs clarification. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The example in which (IMO) a source has been improperly considered reliable is "taxgirl"s blog in forbes.com being used to support information about the IRS / Tea Party controversy. She's an expert on taxes, not necessarily on internal IRS procedures, and almost certainly not on politics. My recollection is it's been called "reliable" because of WP:NEWSBLOG, even though it doesn't appear to be under Forbes' editorial control. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Sorry about the slow response. I'm traveling and only have a little time to be online each day and some days not at all. Is taxgirl an expert when judged by the definition of expert in WP:SPS? Since a newspaper blog is, in that case, a self-published source, that's the definition of expert which would apply. Whether WP:BLPPRIMARY should apply if she's talking about living persons is a bit trickier. It would seem to me that any source which is self-published is also primary, but that's just off the top of my head. WP:BLPN would be a good place to ask about that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not necessarily primary sources. (For example, if a scientist posted a meta analysis of scientific reports on Facebook, then the source would be "secondary" but "self-published". Also, probably WP:NOTGOODSOURCE.)

However, when it comes to controversial statements about BLPs, the English Misplaced Pages frequently imposes nearly identical rules on both, so determining the exact classification may not matter much in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Alter wording of footnote on BURDEN?

The footnote that says "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient" seems to turn WP:BURDEN on its head. We are always supposed to assume good faith. This means that every time anyone claims that they "believe" a source verifies the material they must be taken at their word and the burden is then suddenly on the party wishing to remove the unsourced material.

Shouldn't the footnote read "Once an editor has provided any source that sufficiently verifies the material"?

Another option would of course be to change "(e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)" to read "(e.g., the cited source failing to fully verify the material, undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)"

I know it probably seems like I'm being nitpicky, but this is such a massive problem for the project that clarifying it here, or at least not muddying the water here by using wishy-washy wording, is critical.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I would think if there is disagreement about the quality of the source then the outcome should be determined by consensus at the talk page. Your version seems to depend on people agreeing on what is sufficient. Can you give an example of this causing a problem? I would imagine that the outcomes are a mix of the source ending up being good enough and the source not being good enough. HighInBC 13:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the quality of the source. The source is fine. It just doesn't say what one or more Wikipedians claim it does. And I don't assume people agree -- my version says that the source must actually be sufficient, rather than simply assuming that if one user says it is sufficient then it must automatically be sufficient. See the recent Wikicology affair for a user with a disastrous tendency to cite "sources" that almost never directly support the claims being made. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Setting the standard to actual sufficiency is meaningless if two people can't agree on what is sufficient. If someone is using sources in a deceptive manner then we have other policies to deal with them.

Existing policy also allows us to remove content not supported by the citation, even if a citation exists that does not support it. "...any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Misplaced Pages". You would justify the exclusion by saying "The source does not support what is being said". If someone believes in good faith that the source supports something, then I think it is reasonable that the person removing it articulate why they disagree.

If there is a genuine disagreement about the sources then I think it should fall back to discussion at the talk page. HighInBC 14:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Per AGF, neither party's interpretation of the source (that it supports the claim or that it doesn't) can be placed above the other. This means that if there is disagreement (between an equal or roughly equal number of editors) over whether a source actually verifies a claim, the burden must remain on the editor wishing to add or maintain the claim. If an editor was asked to find a source for a claim that didn't have any inline citation attached to it and came back with a source that other editors didn't think fully verified the claim, this is actually reason to believe that the claim can't be sourced, as someone who was trying to verify it failed to do so, and this means the burden should if anything be placed even more on the editor wishing to re-add the claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Or it could mean that the person who rejected the profered source was engaged in POV pushing, or misread or misunderstood the source, or doesn't know what a reliable source is (see: any number of claims that blogs/corporate websites/etc. are never, ever reliable for any claim whatsoever) or any number of other things. WP:BURDEN explicitly says that you have to provide exactly one (1) source that you (=not the other editors) believe is reliable for the claim in question. After that, it's everyone's job to figure out what the sources say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

But for the record, of course I agree that the talk page should be used if there is disagreement. I just also think that the burden of verifiability was very intentionally placed where it is, and I think it should stay there pending a consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, the footnote says what is meant. The BURDEN is met (not everything, but specifically and exclusively the burden imposed upon the one editor in the WP:BURDEN section) by providing a single source that the one editor sincerely believes to be reliable. After that, normal consensus processes apply.

The point of the footnote is to stop the "bring me a rock" game, in which an editor provides source after source after source, with no end. The BURDEN ends when you supply exactly one (1) source that you personally believe to be appropriate. We specify that you must have a good-faith belief that the source is reliable for the claim because we needed to get past the stupid "but what if you just cite http://example.com for everything?" objections.

Let's pretend that you and I are in a dispute. I blank something (unsourced, and IMO quite possibly wrong). You restore it, and add a source – a source that you (=not I) believe to be reliable for the claim in question. You have fully met your WP:BURDEN. My remaining options are:

1. accept your edit,
2. discuss your edit (e.g., on the talk page or at WP:RSN), and/or
3. counter with a source that I prefer (e.g., a better source that says the same thing, or a reliable source that says something different).

The only option that's not available to me is: Blank it again and demand that you bring me yet another source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree ... if WAID does not accept the source you provide, she should go to the talk page and discuss her continued concerns. Blanking again is a form of edit warring. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure I entirely agree. The entire footnote reads, "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Misplaced Pages (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back." (Emphasis added.) The "e.g." means "for example," thus there can be other reasons than those specifically mentioned and one of those unmentioned reasons can be that the source provided is not adequate (ordinarily, not reliable). Material which is not reliable sourced is unsourced and can be removed. Whether a source is or is not reliable is, of course, a matter over which editors can disagree and talk page discussion or BRD is needed, but there are also many cases in which a source simply is not, by any light, reliable and the source and the material which it supports can be removed. (Which is not, of course, the best practice, but is an acceptable practice.) That such could be the case is made plain by the "or sourcing" and the "before ... added back" in the second sentence. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: But none of those three options should be a requirement if the source provided does not actually support the wording in the article. Whether the user who added the source has a "good faith" belief that it does should be irrelevant. The user could be incompetent, and drawing that conclusion is not a violation of AGF. A claim that has a source attached to it that doesn't actually support the claim is an unsourced claim, and AGF cannot trump this fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If the source truly doesn't support the statement (e.g., it is a claim about the price of pizza and I have provided you with a copy of Einstein's Annus Mirabilis papers), then you should have no difficulty getting other editors to articulate a consensus that my source is inadequate, ideally by providing sources that show the opposite (or even by providing sources that show the claim is correct, no matter how inadequate my suggested source was). However, simply "blank it again and demand that I bring you another source" is no longer an option. Once I've met the burden, you have to do a little more work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, WhatamIdoing. In the Arbcom case that has been mentioned here, that was precisely what happened. Getting the consensus that sources which didn't even mention the material didn't support the material proved impossible in the discussions that followed, and a surprisingly large cadre of editors (including arbitrators) supported the proposition that it was legitimate to restore challenged material and source it at one's leisure, so it didn't matter that the sources didn't support the material. Not permitting immediate re-removal leaves us open to bald-face lying and intentional disruption.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: You are right to say that blanking again (after a source, any source, has been provided) is a form of edit-warring. But you would also be right to say that blanking again after no source is provided is a form of edit-warring. This policy is supposed to assume that editors use their brains and prefer the talk page to edit-warring, and bringing (obvious) fact that "it's technically a form of edit-warring to remove an unsourced claim over and over again" into the wording of BURDEN is severely problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No, "blanking again if no source is provided" is not edit warring... Because the removed material should not have been restored without a source. Restoring without a source can be equated to vandalism, and may be freely re-removed until a source is provided That is the whole point of BURDEN... Don't restore without a source. Blueboar (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The entire #Preserving a burden discussion above (meaning including its subsections) and various other discussion similar to it show that removed material can be validly restored without a source. That's a strong point of WP:Preserve. If the content should be in the article because it is important to the article and can be sourced, it is not vandalism in any way to restore it. WP:Vandalism is very clear what is and is not vandalism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

no, no... And again no. If you want to preserve information that has been removed for not being sourced, the way to do so is to provide a source for it. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)‎

No, no. And again no. It's not that black and white, and editors have been explicitly clear about this in the Preserving a burden discussion above, and in past matters on this very talk page, including Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 63#Restoration of challenged material, which led to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. WP:Burden currently states, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." But it is very often that Misplaced Pages does not work like that. When an editor goes and removes unsourced material, especially if carelessly removed (meaning without doing their WP:Preserve responsibility), they might be reverted. And it's common for the editors to discuss the matter on the talk page afterward, usually resulting in the unsourced content being sourced. There is no deadline, after all. What this policy's current wording of "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" does is commonly enable editors to recklessly remove content and then go about their business, as if blanking almost an entire article of easily verifiable content is helping Misplaced Pages. And, like I noted in the Preserving a burden discussion, it's cases like these that have seen such editors reprimanded and/or sanctioned for that behavior.

As for Hijiri88's proposal, I'm not convinced that the wording should be changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, and I believe that you violate this policy every time you do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

And your interpretation is detrimental, since you support disruptive editing every time you argue the way that you argued in the #Preserving a burden discussion. And I reiterate that this line of thinking from you is quite a recent development. Seems to have come on only because of my involvement. And let's be very clear about supposedly violating policies: If going by WP:BURO and WP:Ignore all rules, which are also policies, I violated nothing. We could argue over what cancels what out policy-wise. But to anyone with a shred of common sense, I did the right things in the cases you find so egregious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 you know I love the work you do here, but I am really at a loss as to what is driving this. The Misplaced Pages you are advocating for here would be a nightmare to me that would fill up with so much garbage. Think about that horrible student content about women having estrus that we moved to the talk page instead of PRESERVING. Think about the argument that student could have made had she taken your position here. Yikes. Please let it go. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I've been clear that I'm not stating that all information should be retained; I was very clear about what information should be retained, and that information should not be carelessly removed. WP:Preserve is policy and it doesn't support retaining everything either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The thing I am struggling with, is that you are making the argument that if content is verifiable on any editor's personal authority, it needs to stay (the only authority available, since we are talking about unsourced content) That is the nightmare part of this; that is the Pandora's box you are opening with this line of policy argument. (I am not talking now about your behavior at the child grooming article. you could ~maybe~ have won an argument about that at ANI.) I am struggling with you elevating this to general policy. It is horrible to consider how this would be deployed. Just yikes. .Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been making a personal authority argument, or suggesting any proposals here, Jytdog. I am always about looking at what the sources state and following them with WP:Due weight. Also, moving the content to the talk page is a form of PRESERVING. That's why I credited you for preserving content in such cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

This discussion is veering off course. Anyway, the current wording says we should "assume good faith" on the part of a user who has added some kind of source that "they honestly believe" supports the material. I didn't bring it up before because I didn't think it was necessary, but this is also turning AGF on its head, as both editors should be expected to assume good faith on the part of the other editor. If you add a source that I genuinely believe, in good faith, doesn't verify the claim made in the article, the burden is still on you to find a new source that actually verifies the content. When I say "unsourced" I don't meant "there is no inline citation attached to it"; I mean "there is no inline citation attached to it that actually verifies its content". If I remove some material that doesn't have any citation attached to it, and you re-add it with a citation that doesn't directly support it, that is a reason to remove it again, as it means someone was actively trying, and failing, to find a source for it.

Flyer22 Reborn's interpretation of this wording, that it enables users who recklessly remove unsourced material, is a radical interpretation, and (I'd be willing to bet) a very rare (among long-time, reputable editors) view of how this policy is supposed to work.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"If you add a source that I genuinely believe, in good faith, doesn't verify the claim made in the article, the burden is still on you to find a new source that actually verifies the content."

No. The main point of this provision is that once you add a source that someone genuinely believes to be unreliable for that claim (e.g., that it {{failed verification}}), then finding a good source (and/or otherwise figuring out how to improve the article) is everyone's problem, not just the original editor's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• We seem to be talking about two different things here... 1) what happens when someone challenges completely unsourced information; and 2) what happens when someone challenges a cited source that does not actually support the statement. Both are valid challenges, but the manner in which the challenge is conducted changes. WP:BURDEN explains what happens in the first situation. It does not explain what happens in the second situation. In the second situation, the challenger has to explain why the source isn't good enough... So a lot more discussion is required. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I have a lot of experience being misunderstood, so I specified exactly what change(s) I wanted to make to the wording of the policy page in my opening comment (I would be happy with either of the two changes, but would ideally prefer both). Currently, the page misinterprets AGF and directly asserts that if someone re-adds removed material (that had previously not been attributed to any source) with a source (any source) that they claim is sufficient, the burden is then suddenly on the editor wishing to remove the material. It's right there in the footnote, so what you say about WP:BURDEN explains what happens in the first situation. It does not explain what happens in the second situation. is not entirely accurate. This is a misinterpretation of AGF, as AGF is supposed to be a two-way street. I am saying that the burden should still be on the party wishing to re-add the material to convince other Wikipedians that the source is good enough. My assertion (of course!) assumes that the other Wikipedians have outlined "why" they think the source isn't good enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88, my statement about the policy's wording "commonly enabl editors to recklessly remove content and then go about their business" was clearly in reference to the "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" wording. I pointed to the #Preserving a burden discussion addressing this and to an AbrCom case addressing it. Such behavior is not a rare occurrence in the least. I also pointed to the Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 62#More Burden stuff example for more documentation on the matter. Really, the "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" part combined with the "and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." part has repeatedly caused problems, in addition to being helpful in other cases. But, as noted, your proposal is not about such behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The ArbCom case to which you are referring has no bearing on this discussion, as the only content policy it cited was BLP. BLP obviously cannot apply to my concerns about the current wording of BURDEN, as under BLP contentious material must be sourced and sourced well (i.e., it cannot be a point of disagreement whether a source directly and fully backs up all the contentious material). This discussion is about (1) whether the burden remains on the party wishing to add the content after they have added a source but the source has been challenged as not directly and fully verifying the content, and (2) whether the current wording accurately reflects the current community consensus on this point. The answer to (1) is always automatically "yes" when BLP applies, so this discussion is only applicable to non-BLP subjects. I actually don't think anyone here is disagreeing with me on (1), but it's difficult to tell when nebulous and peripherally related concepts like the general reliability of this or that source (as opposed to whether a source whose general reliability is not in question verifies the content) and the responsibility to preserve appropriate content (even though BURDEN assumes that the appropriateness of the content, which may not be objectively verifiable in external reliable sources, is already in dispute) keep getting brought up.

ArbCom actually did recently comment on (1) here (they SBANned someone at least partly for adding and/or preserving content and citing sources whose verification of the content was disputed) and I doubt anyone here would disagree with the Arbs on this point. So I can only assume that those of you who haven't supported my proposed wording are disagreeing on (2). So can you let me try to convince you of my view of (2)?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And as I've pointed out, the KWW ArbCom case was about edit warring over BURDEN, not removal of the material per se. Here's the exact findings:

Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#Exceptions notes "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule: Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."

Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) edit warred to remove uncited, but uncontroversial, material from List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman (timeline) and List of awards and nominations received by Hugh Jackman (timeline)

(Emphasis added.) Just like there's no absolute EW exception for BLP violations, there's no edit warring exception — absolute or partial — for enforcing BURDEN, but that doesn't mean that such removals are prohibited in any circumstance, it just means that you can't EW over them. The proper remedy is to report the unsourced restorer to ANI or to seek page protection. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, TransporterMan. Yes, I was confused by Flyer22 Reborn's citing of the Kww ArbCom case, as the general ban on edit-warring is not a content policy but a user conduct one, and so should not be taken as having any baring on how we should and should not encourage removal of unsourced or poorly sourced content. I do think that somewhere on this page, perhaps even in BURDEN, we should specify that reverting back and forth is never encouraged, even when one of the reverters has both BURDEN and BRD on their side and the other reverter is the one refusing to use the talk page. But it is not directly relevant to where the burden lies at any particular point. Indeed, the current wording implicitly encourages edit-warring by making it unnecessarily ambivalent on whom the burden lies. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that in the Arbcom case mentioned above, TRM was making no effort whatsoever to satisfy WP:BURDEN before restoring the material. He was restoring dozens of tables at a time, providing no inline citations at all, and those citations that he was providing supported only sporadic line items in single tables. He clearly stated that he believed it was correct behaviour to restore the material and then search for the sources later, an action which contradicts any reading of WP:BURDEN. The only excuse offered for his misbehaviour was that he was insufficiently competent to format tables or to edit out of article history, neither of which seems plausible. My primary mistake was to not block him for intentional disruption on his second edit: by trying to give him some rope, I wound up with people being under the impression that I was in a content dispute instead of an admin dealing with intentionally disruptive editing. Flyer22's suggested change gives such disruption. There's some case for it when the citation being provided as least mentions the material it purports to source and there's a reasonable dispute over the material's reliability, but any effort to provide some lenience there shouldn't shield editors that restore the material without any sourcing at all.

One way or another, that wasn't a good test case for WP:BURDEN: it's more an extension of the Eric Corbett kind of issue, where an editor becomes sufficiently popular that those that attempt to make him obey the same rules as more lowly editors are punished for doing so.—Kww(talk) 05:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You stated that The Rambling Man "was making no effort whatsoever to satisfy WP:BURDEN before restoring the material. He clearly stated that he believed it was correct behaviour to restore the material and then search for the sources later, an action which contradicts any reading of WP:BURDEN." If he intended to add sources for the information, that is an effort to satisfy WP:Burden. What is the problem if the information was not contentious? We've had enough "What counts as contentious information in our BLPs?" discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons, including the Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36#Rephrase "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" subheading matter I linked to above. I do think it's reckless to go around blanking material from articles just because it's unsourced and using the WP:Burden policy as justification for that behavior...unless the content is wrong, original research, shows no signs of verification or is a WP:BLP violation. WP:Burden states, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." It does not state that the source has to be added to the article. Sure it states "inline citation," but an inline citation can be added to the talk page. If I see that someone has removed easily verifiable, encyclopedic content that belongs in one of our Misplaced Pages articles, that the article is worse off without it, I will revert without providing a source right then and there; I can source the matter afterward, including on the talk page when noting why the removal was wrong, and I see nothing wrong with that, especially in the aforementioned cases involving me noted at the #Preserving a burden discussion above. WP:Burden states, "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Exactly. My objection will be that revert.

You stated, "Flyer22's suggested change gives such disruption." I made no suggested change. Also, linking my old username doesn't result in a ping for me. I don't need to be pinged to this talk page anyway...since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kww: Flyer is right insofar as that the proposed change is mine. Flyer has been somewhat counterproductively claiming that my proposed change goes the wrong way and suggesting that if anything it should be altered in the opposite direction, but has not made a concrete proposal. I have to say I don't know quite how to proceed when a solid proposal for an amendment to a policy page recieves no serious opposition but is hijacked with discussion of a largely unrelated dispute. Can I assume you support my proposed amendment, anyway? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that I have been "somewhat counterproductively claiming that proposed change goes the wrong way and suggesting that if anything it should be altered in the opposite direction" is incorrect. The only thing I stated about your proposal is that "I'm not convinced that the wording should be changed." And when someone makes a comment that I disagree with, I am likely to respond to it. Blueboar made a comment I disagreed with here in this section; I responded here in this section, regardless of that aspect not being about your proposal. Things like that happen on talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I support your change, and find Flyer22 Reborn's contributions to the discussion hilarious. An "inline citation" cannot be added to a talk page, as such a citation could not possibly be considered "inline", and an "intention" to add a source "later" does not in any way, shape or form satisfy a policy that states that the material has to be cited before being restored, as "before" and "after" are distinct concepts.—Kww(talk) 08:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Kww, I couldn't care less that you are now angry with me per my above commentary and are now trying to get a rise out of me. Not angry or annoyed? I don't believe you. You may find my comments about carelessly blanking hilarious, but, as you well know, many others do not. I knew that someone would nitpick my "inline citation" comment. By "but an inline citation can be added to the talk page," I was referring to Template:Reflist-talk. I do not define "inline" as strictly as you do, obviously. Either way, many do not agree with your interpretation of WP:Burden. You have always been overzealous when it comes to citing WP:Burden, and that caught up with you. Keep WP:BURO in mind in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And to be clearer on taking matters to the talk page, when I add text and sources (via Template:Reflist-talk) to the talk page, I consider those inline citations there on the talk page; they are inline citations for that content, and it is how the content will appear in the article. To me, it is hardly any different than using a WP:Sandbox. I see no strict "only articles have inline citations" interpretation at WP:Inline citation either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer, don't misquote yourself; that,s almost as bad and misquoting someone else. Your exact words were What this policy's current wording of "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" does is commonly enable editors to recklessly remove content and then go about their business, as if blanking almost an entire article of easily verifiable content is helping Misplaced Pages. That is saying that you think my proposal goes in the wrong direction and that you think in fact an even greater burden of proof should be placed on the party wishing to remove the unsourced or poorly sourced material. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't misquote myself; my excellent memory doesn't allow for that. My "02:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)" post above shows that I indeed stated the following: "As for Hijiri88's proposal, I'm not convinced that the wording should be changed." So no misquote. As for your interpretation of what I meant by my "commonly enable editors to recklessly remove content" wording, you are wrong. Plain and simple. My "02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)" and "02:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)" posts show that I did not address your proposal until after my replies to Blueboar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong. You didn't "misquote yourself"; you quoted yourself out of context and misrepresented the rest of what you said. My mistake. But now that you have admitted that the majority of what you wrote in this thread was off-topic commentary not directly about my proposal but about how the current wording encourages users such as Kww to recklessly remove content I am satisfied. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Nah, you were wrong about all of it; your "09:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)" comment is a part of your incorrect commentary. Like I implied below, the way you misinterpret and take things out of context is something I cannot be bothered with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "getting a rise out of you", Flyer22 Reborn: I consider the addition of unsourced material to be something we tolerate from new and inexperienced editors, and that the waffle room we leave in our policies is to allow them to grow into the job: it's why we tolerate the original insertion of unsourced material. An experienced editor that restores unsourced material without providing an inline citation that supports the material is simply being disruptive. WP:BURDEN doesn't have exception cases, and trying to make up new definitions of words in order to justify the misbehaviour is also disruptive.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And I've already pointed to a past discussion where I thought like you did (Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 61#The "provide an inline citation yourself" wording should be changed back to the original wording), but never in the extreme way that you did. My opinion on the WP:Burden policy has changed precisely because of cases like those noted in the #Preserving a burden discussion. Your claim that "An experienced editor that restores unsourced material without providing an inline citation that supports the material is simply being disruptive." is proven wrong by the initial case noted in the #Preserving a burden discussion. I restored vital information in that case, and the article was not harmed whatsoever by that restoration; it was harmed by the careless removal of vital information, information that was removed simply because it was unsourced and suspected of being original research. I reverted first, and sourced later. Not a thing wrong with that. I'm not going to repeat what is wrong with the kind of behavior that the editor who removed the content displayed since I and others made our points in that above discussion, and very clearly, but any kind of support for that behavior is severely misguided. Our experienced and well-meaning editors usually know that it is not a good thing to go around removing content solely because it is unsourced. Restoring unsourced content that belongs in a Misplaced Pages article is not being disruptive. Vital information should be retained, and the WP:Preserve policy is explicitly clear about that. There is nothing in the least disruptive about restoring vital information to an article. WP:BURDEN is not as strict as you interpret it to be, and when it gets in the way of the right thing to do for our articles, the WP:BURO and WP:Ignore all rules policies apply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits we're actually discussing here are this removal of unsourced, but easily-sourceable, content, followed by Flyer22's revert, followed by edit warring over whether it was appropriate to restore the content without an immediate source. Note please: (1) Flyer22 was objectively correct and her edits are widely agreed to have improved the encyclopaedia in this case; and (2) Nobody was called a child-molester.—S Marshall T/C 19:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I think this is relevant stuff, though. We're discussing the interaction between PRESERVE and BURDEN. In the Flyer22 case on Child grooming, she was factually correct and her edits improved the encyclopaedia, and nobody has contended otherwise. It triggered this whole wall of text because editors felt that she was procedurally wrong. I've tried to defend her actions. The TRM/Kww case went a whole lot higher and got a whole lot more complicated, involving as it did a pissing contest between two of Misplaced Pages's sysops who had... well, let's say my experience of both is that they have a great deal of faith in their own judgment and aren't afraid to express their opinions at length. Not surprised it went to Arbcom. I've found Kww helpful in the past and I recall some good calls he made as a sysop, but my view is that the restorations of text involved in the runup to the Arbcom case were probably justified. I don't see removing accurate but unsourced text as improving the encyclopaedia. And that point is central to this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 07:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, some of the material was demonstrably false, and other parts of it couldn't be verified one way or the other by people that put considerable effort into it. Somewhere around 80% accurate overall, which is fairly typical for these unsourced "list of awards and nominations" articles: not a total crapshoot, but well shy of what a reference work should aim for. The whole point was that verification and correction was mandated by WP:V prior to restoration, not after.—Kww(talk) 23:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I take it that you are referring to "The TRM/Kww case" when you stated that "some of the material was demonstrably false" and "other parts of it couldn't be verified one way or the other by people that put considerable effort into it."

S Marshall, the only editors, other than Kww, who explicitly made it clear that they felt that I was procedurally wrong are WhatamIdoing and the editor I reverted in the Child grooming case. No other editor stated that I was at all wrong in the Child grooming and Human penis cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Given that he explicitly stated in the following sentence that such a situation was "fairly typical for ... list of awards and nominations", it seems kind of disingenuous to say you take it as him talking about the grooming and penis questions. I haven't looked at those prior disputes (they are at best two of about a thousand potentially relevant precedent cases, if they are even relevant precedents) so I don't know if what you are saying about no one but Kww and WhatamIdoing (and S Marshall -- sorry, the grammar of what you wrote is confusing) being the only ones who disagreed with you, but if it is true then this looks like you trying to "prove" you were right in one dispute by claiming others agreed with you in a completely separate dispute. This is, at the very best, a fallacious argument. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I've already been clear with you, above and below, that I do not like the way you interpret my posts and the way you assign your views to them. I was clear that I cannot discuss anything with people who do that. So do stop addressing me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I've already made it clear that I don't like the way you interpret my posts and the way you assign different meanings to them than intended. I am sure User:Kww feels the same way about your doing the same thing to him/her directly above, and so that is why I called you out on it. If you do not want me responding to your making bizarre arguments and putting words in people's mouths, kindly stop posting in a thread I started. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No, you weren't clear that you "don't like the way interpret posts and the way assign different meanings to them than intended." That's because I never did that. Putting words in people's mouths is what you've repeatedly done to me and to others in this thread. This is on full display above and below; for example, do revisit your "07:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)" post regarding The Rambling Man. You are looking for a fight. Look elsewhere. No one wants to read this bickering. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And it's quite clear from your posts in this discussion, with all its arbitrary breaks, that your arguments are viewed as bizarre by a number of editors. The only one you should even attempt at calling out is yourself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Go on believing what you want, I guess. Good bye. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22, where I said "editors felt she was procedurally wrong", I intended that to mean "some editors felt she was procedurally wrong" rather than "most editors felt she was procedurally wrong". It doesn't so much matter who felt what --- I think what matters is that with the policies as currently written their position was tenable. It would be appropriate to put some limits on WP:BURDEN that prevent it from being used by Randy in Boise to waste more competent editors' time, but that involves distinguishing incompetent editors from competent ones. It is therefore impossible on Misplaced Pages. This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, including those who have special needs such as ignorance, stupidity and bad judgment. Elitism is against our core principles, so you, and anyone else who watchlists a lot of important articles and defends them against asinine edits, should understand that your behaviour is oppressive towards asinine people. Sarcasm, of course, is oppressive towards editors who are too stupid to detect it, so I'll be adding a templated warning to my own talk page in a few moments.—S Marshall T/C 07:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured what you meant, S Marshall; I simply wanted note of it to be clearer. Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please leave me out of this discussion. It is typical of Kww that he has failed to get over being desysopped for abusing his tools, it is typical of his behavioural deficiencies that he would talk about me rather than to me. Now, back to your regular program. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now even someone on Flyer's side has called Flyer out for continuously derailing this discussion. We are not, to quote Flyer, talking about TRM, or Kww, or ArbCom and desysopping. We are talking about whether the BURDEN remains on the party wishing to add material after they add a source whose verifiabity has been challenged. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Also incorrect. The Rambling Man made no such statement or implication, and seemingly appreciated the ping. It's better not to talk about people behind their backs. A ping is commonly a courtesy in such cases. I was done with your proposal when I stated "But, as noted, your proposal is not about such behavior." That others chose to talk about the ArbCom case is their decision; I will take no such blame for the actions of others in this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No, you brought an ArbCom case from last summer that had absolutely nothing to do with my proposal up completely out of the blue, needlessly badmouthing one of the parties to said case in the process, and then when said user came along and posted an opposing opinion to your own you pinged the other party to that case and claimed that you were doing so because people were talking about him. If Kww had posted on a noticeboard or an admin's talk page explicitly or even implicitly requesting that TRM be blocked, informing him would have been justified and I would have applauded you for it; in this case, you just clouded a discussion you had already hijacked enough with your off-topic ArbCom commentary by claiming this was a discussion "about" TRM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I brought up the ArbCom case, and that is the only thing you are correct about with regard to me. I did not badmouth Kww. Yes, I pinged The Rambling Man, and I noted why. And that ping was not a WP:CANVASS violation in any way; if you cannot understand that about one of our guidelines, I don't have much confidence that you understand the WP:Burden policy. The Rambling Man was indeed appreciative of the ping. You decided to go on about what you consider off-topic. Others decided to comment on it. Like I stated, "That others chose to talk about the ArbCom case is their decision; I will take no such blame for the actions of others in this matter." Furthermore, you are continuing to derail your own proposal discussion by debating me on all of this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If it wasn't Kww you were badmouthing, who were you accusing of being "commonly enable ... to recklessly remove content and then go about their business" "without doing their WP:Preserve responsibility"? Were you badmouthing a whole bunch of people? Whom else should we ping to allow them to respond to you talking about them? Kww was the only one you explicitly named. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you misinterpret a lot of things, don't you? I cannot have a discussion with people who do that. I stated, "What this policy's current wording of 'should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source' does is commonly enable editors to recklessly remove content and then go about their business, as if blanking almost an entire article of easily verifiable content is helping Misplaced Pages. And, like I noted in the Preserving a burden discussion, it's cases like these that have seen such editors reprimanded and/or sanctioned for that behavior." That was a comment about anyone recklessly removing content and using the WP:Burden policy to justify it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

• We're talking about this footnote, right:

  Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Misplaced Pages (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

  This seems quite reasonable. It's obviously the person with objections that has to articulate them by starting discussion. This seems quite sensible and the current wording says it well enough. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: An objection as simple as That source doesn't verify the content can be articulated in an edit summary, and in many cases is a perfectly reasonable objection and not at all a failure to assume good faith. The current wording discourages such objections as though they were AGF-violations, implicitly placing it below ‘‘undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content’’, and places the BURDEN on the party wishing to remove the potentially unsourced material. Do we really need to ask ArbCom to SBAN a user who misquotes sources before we allowed say those sources are being misquoted without this objection being shouted down as an AGF-violation? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

AFAICS you systematically quote the footnote wrong. It is only a detail, the word "the", I'll bold it to show where you render the content and intent of the foortnote wrong, IMHO: "... and places the BURDEN ...". No, it is not the WP:BURDEN that is shifted from one party to the other. There's another, definitely smaller, burden after a good-faith reference is given: if you want to revert it while you think it is not a sufficient/correct/appropriate/... reference: EXPLAIN YOURSELF. That's all. No burden to find another source or whatever (as has been implied above). Of course all this in good faith on both sides, that's why it is often safer to use the talk page than just revert with a quirky explanation. So, please don't quote that footnote again with only half a sentence, always include at least the second half of the sentence "...has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Misplaced Pages". That part of the sentence can not be abbreviated to "BURDEN", while it is not WP:BURDEN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: The footnote implicitly rejects the rationale that "the source provided still doesn't verify the material", as it says any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Misplaced Pages (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). Under the current wording, their must be a content-based problem with the material, and we can't reject the source on verifiability grounds because an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient (my emphasis); this also turns WP:AGF on its head, because under AGF we should also be assuming that the editor removing the material believes "in good faith" that the source is insufficient.

As I stated in my OP comment, I would be content with just clarifying in parentheses that a sourcing-based rationale for removal is valid, i.e. replacing "(e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)" with "(e.g., the cited source failing to fully verify the material, undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.)".

Anyone who is seriously opposing this proposal would appear to believe that "the cited source failing to fully verify the material" is not a valid rationale. The only other reason I can think of is that this is too much clarification on an already byte-heavy page, which is pretty ridiculous. Can someone explain to me what I am missing if indeed I am missing something?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You're reading things that aren't there. Has been explained to you many times above. "...articulate specific problem(s)...", that's all, there's no limitation on what kind of problems you can articulate. In good faith. There's also no turning AGF on its head. Both editors need to do their edits in good faith (obviously). Both should start with AGF on each other. Obviously. If you can't assume good faith because of obvious intent to disrupt, I suppose the WP:AGF guidance will tell you wat to do (WP:ANI, or whatever I checked: the link in Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith#Dealing with bad faith goes to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, which offers several possibilities of what to do next). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The current wording assumes good faith on the part of User A but assumes bad faith on the part of User B. A traditional interpretation of AGF demands that we assume both that User A sincerely believes that their source is adequate and that User B sincerely believes the opposite. Discussion should then take place on the talk page, and the user who can convince others of their sincerely held belief would usually get consensus on their side. During this discussion, the contested material should stay out, as the burden is on User A to get consensus for their view. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. "The current wording assumes good faith on the part of User A but assumes bad faith on the part of User B": no it doesn't. Has been explained above. An obvious newbie can assume in good faith that a blog is a sufficient source. A more experienced editor can in good faith know that that is not the case. And explain that on the newbie's talk page. So, please stop reading things that aren't there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

So if you don't disagree with me on the substance, why can't we add the text " the cited source failing to fully verify the material" to the parenthetical list of good rationales? And (like I told HighInBC at the top of the thread) this isn't about the objective reliability of such-and-such source -- it's about the muddier problem of Wikipedians misinterpreting/misrepresenting/misquoting apparently reliable sources. So bringing up "newbies" and "blogs" out of nowhere is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with you as almost anyone else before. No, the addition is unnecessary IMHO (my main rationale: WP:BEANS). The formulation is clear as it stands, and doesn't need further cluttering with examples. If my examples weren't helpful (as you contend), then we don't agree. Obviously. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

We could add that example, although I recommend against it on grounds of WP:CREEP and the experience of past abuse. We have had some editors (and especially some POV pushers) who have taken the stance that if it's not plagiarism, then it {{failed verification}}. While it is true that an edit summary that says "not in the cited source" is an articulation of a specific problem, offering that as an example might tend to inflame disputes rather than resolving them. (Specifically endorsing communication by edit summaries has its own problems.)

Also, the choice of non-verification examples was deliberate; I wanted to make sure that editors remembered that verification does not guarantee inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm not pushing this any more (more because of the grief Francis was giving me than because of anyone actually convincing me that my proposal was a bad idea), but I should clarify that I agree communication via edit summaries is a bad idea, and my proposal would not have promoted doing so any more than the current wording already does. If 'an edit summary that says "not in the cited source" is an articulation of a specific problem' 'might tend to inflame disputes rather than resolving them', the same is probably true of an edit summary that says "unencyclopedic", and adding one to a list that already includes the other suggests they be used in the same manner, rather than suddenly endorsing the use of edit summaries to communicate. As for your CREEP concern, if I hadn't already dropped the proposal I would have responded by saying we could remove the "unencyclopedic" example and replace it with my proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

• Per WP:REVTALK, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!" Editors should be engaging in discussion to avoid edit-warring. The onus is on the person with the objections to start such discussion on the talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are right, of course, and when I am in a content dispute I usually try to be the first to open a talk page discussion as I hate to edit war, even when BURDEN is on my side. But this is about whether it is my responsibility to open such a discussion even when I am trying to remove unsourced material. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• The "onus" discussion doesn't help very much. If you're sure the other party will understand I can imagine that an edit summary in this sense might suffise to clear the air: "That source is based on Misplaced Pages and is not sufficient per WP:CIRCULAR" (or whatever applicable that articulates the issues without unduly aggravating the other party). But as said above "...it is often safer to use the talk page than just revert with a quirky explanation", yes, that would most often work best to clear the air. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• It may help to explore the issue from a different angle - one that does not involve BURDEN.... Suppose editor A adds material to an article - and includes a citation at that time. In this situation, BURDEN is not an issue, since the material has never been unsourced. Now... suppose editor B comes along and contends that the citation does not actually support the material. What should B do? A) remove both the material and the flawed source? B) keep the material, but remove the source? C) raise the issue on the talk page and request a new source? D) something else? Blueboar (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • None of these as a fixed rule. The WP:V policy doesn't oblige to choose one and only one of these options, applicable for every case. So we shouldn't be steering it towards a fixed rule. I think I have applied all of these, depending on case, trying to use as much of my common sense as possible. For example, if the contention is a WP:REDFLAG, I'd remove both contention and inadequate source. If nonetheless in doubt whether it might be true I'd ask on talk. Sometimes my curiosity was tickled enough by the unlikely contention, that I went on a search for a source myself, sometimes finding one that I thought in good faith to be sufficient. If the contention is "Mozart was a composer" referenced to a blog, I'd remove the blog source without further thinking, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I would agree. What to do really depends on the nature of the specific material and why the specific source is flawed. Now... Whatever you end up doing, would you say that you have an obligation to go to the talk page and explain what the problem is? Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting discussion to have, but I would say it depends entirely on the material whether we do (A), (B), (C) or (D). In my case if I'm reading an article and I see a claim with a citation attached, and the claim isn't intrinsically dubious to my eyes, nine times out of ten I will gloss over it without checking the source. A claim is intrinsically dubious if it appears to be contradicted by a source I have already consulted. If I happened across a claim with a source that didn't verify it I would do (A) if I found the claim intrinsically dubious, and probably leave a note on the talk page; I would do (B) if the claim was not intrinsically dubious, and usually try to find and add a more appropriate source. If I found an entire article filled with such problems I would post on the talk page, and probably on a relevant WikiProject or noticeboard, and maybe if the article was irredeemable and there were, for example, GNG concerns, I might start an AFD.

(Obviously with the Wikicology problem it's a bit cloudier as the community has been explicitly mandated to systematically hunt down and source-check claims that we already know probably have sourcing problems. The community already knew about these problems before the ArbCom decision -- would we have encouraged systematically fixing the problem before ArbCom explicitly did so? Most such cases never come before ArbCom, and many users of Wikicology's disposition never get blocked.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)n

OK... so would you agree that there are at least some cases where you (as the person challenging the source) have an obligation to go to the talk page and explain what the problem is (ie that the source does not support the information)? Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite convinced there's no obligation in that sense, as I said above. So let's not invent more rules. WP:V is very strict, but that's not in it. The only situation where I can imagine that it is really as good as unavoidable to go to the talk page is when the "A" editor's edit summary reads "see talk page", then if you are "B" and want to challenge the edit nonetheless I can't see how you can proceed with a revert without writing something in the talk page section where the edit and/or source is discussed. Most of the rest follows from WP:CIVIL I suppose: if an edit summary would be rudely short or filled with acronyms to get explained why you remove content and/or ref, then too a talk page comment would be more or less unavoidable I suppose. Or when the situation is getting tense, with a risk to go off in an edit war, then too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's kind of an aside, but what about if User B is right on the substance (that User A's cited source does not verify the material, nor it seems does any other source) and users C, D and E all agree, but User A continues to argue and refuses to recognize 4-1 as a consensus? "Dispute resolution" is all very well and good but that would seem to be either TE or CIR issues at play and ANI would be the better venue. Then what if it is 3-1? The whole thing is very murky, and my attitude is that anything that makes it clearer (and we are seemingly all in agreement here that "the cited source failing to fully verify the material" is a valid reason for removing a claim that has been re-added) should be implemented. Then when User A says "but I added a source, and WP:V says any source I add is automatically good enough", users B, C, D and E can simply respond "no, it doesn't -- read the footnote more closely"; at present it is more likely to be B, C, D or E saying "your source isn't good enough, as it clearly doesn't verify the claim" and A responding "but WP:V says that if I added any source that is good enough -- read the footnote more closely". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute, so WP:DR would be a first option I suppose. TE and CIR are essays. When the policy says it is a content dispute that's the first route to explore. So now. I don't like to discuss on the basis of hypothetical problems. Either you have a problem/situation you would like to get help with, or I think you've gotten sizeable portions of clarification on the policy so that you know how to handle almost any situation where it would be involved. If you're just waiting for the quote to fall that you could use elsewhere, please tell us where that elsewhere is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

First, no where does WP:V say "any source added is good enough"... you can always challenge a source. However, you often need to explain why a source isn't good enough. That's where the talk page comes in.

And this is why I support the footnote. The footnote does not require us to accept "any source added"... it simply requires us to open a talk page discussion should an added source be flawed - to explain why it is unacceptable. This is especially important to do when someone has attempted to comply with BURDEN and failed. Opening a talk page discussion helps everyone shift gears... and move from dealing with a no source situation to dealing with a flawed source situation. That shift of gears is important to highlight. The editor who added the flawed source has attempted to comply with BURDEN... and we need to acknowledge that attempt. Now we need to explain why that attempt was (unfortunately) not good enough.

We seem to agree that how we deal with a flawed source is somewhat different from how we deal with no source. Both are problems, but they are different problems. Requiring the challenger to open a talk page discussion helps to separate these two problems and keep them distinct - a talk page discussion helps everyone shift mental gears. It tells the person who added the source: "Thank you for providing a source... but, now we have a different problem to deal with: the source you provided does not support the information. Let's talk about that." Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I wish you were right in saying that ‘no where does WP:V say "any source added is good enough"’, but at present I don’t think you are. At present it says that if a user believes their source (the exact words are ‘any source’) to be good enough ‘in good faith’ then the party wishing to remove the claim needs a different reason, and it gives a list of good but pretty obscure, nebulous and usually difficult-to-prove reasons. Since we are always supposed to assume good faith, this places a pretty heavy burden of proof on the party wishing to remove the claim. Unless we explicitly state that ‘the source doesn't verify the claim -- it says something else’ is a valid reason. This is what my proposal does. By excluding this reason we implicitly place down the list, below nebulous concepts like ‘unencyclopedic’ and leave it open to good-faith but incompetent users like Wikicology to indefinitely place the burden on others. Of course I agree with you that such reasons should be elaborated on the talk page, but once this has been done the claim can be removed and should not be re-added unless consensus is established to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Example

Diff

Didn't go to talk page on that one. I see very little fuss, nothing of the heaviness Hijiri88 implies for someone applying the footnote reasoning in practical editing. If things aren't clear for the other editor of course the next step would be to give a broader explanation on talk, but until anything happens the issue seems solved. For clarity: didn't check who the user was; also didn't open the proposed source on this one (just knowing what should be in the source, or if not: it would probably be an unreliable source). Again, if any unclarity remains after this revert, the next step would be talk page. But I didn't go to talk page in advance for such a routine-like revert. If not using the burden-footnote reasoning in the edit summary of this revert, I'd have to have said something like "reverting good faith error" or something like that, but I assume that would have been less clear (and less to the point) for the other editor. Also using the word "error" in the edit summary may have come accross harsher to the other editor, than pointing out it is probably not said thus in the source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 5

Hijiri 88, I think that you are misunderstanding the overall meaning of the words and to an extent wiki-lawering over the details. If I see what I see as something that I believe PROVEIT is applicable, then if it is old text I will in the first instance slap on a {{citation needed}}, if the citation needed has been there for a reasonable time or if it is new uncited text added to what is otherwise a fully cited article, I will remove the text under PROVEIT (usually including one of the links to the section in WP:V in the edit history. If an editor restores it with what I think is an inappropriate citation, or it is to a source that I do not have access, then I will start a discussion on the talk page (a may also add a relevant tag from {{Inline cleanup tags}} to the new inline citation). The problem is that if the citation has been added in good faith then not unreasonably an editor, particularly an inexperienced one, who believes that they have met the criteria for the request will probably feel aggrieved if it is promptly removed without a discussion as to why. That is not the way to build a consensus -- I have not infrequently had to explain to editors why popular geological websites are not reliable sources. Usually a good faith discussion over these things on the talk page resolves them. If not then just like other content disputes it is time to escalate it and involved others. However just deleting text after it has been restored with what one believes to be a poor citation is a tactic likely to turn a content dispute into a behavioural dispute, with the PROVIT/delete editor superficially looking the more aggressive party. -- PBS (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with PBS's analysis, especially the behavioral aspects. There is simply nothing about the two items listed as non-exclusive examples that means "if the claim failed verification in the cited source, and nobody can find a reliable source that actually does verify this, then there is no valid reason to remove the content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with PBS as well, particularly when it comes to using {{citation needed}} on old text rather than removing it.—S Marshall T/C 05:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much that I am "misunderstanding" the overall meaning or wiki-lawyering over the details. I know that the wording doesn't actually mean what I am saying it could be interpreted as meaning, and I know the two examples are not meant to be exhaustive. I also know that, since the list is not exhaustive, the two examples were probably not chosen because of any sinister "We should assume that any source is good enough as long as someone says it is" agenda and there is no particular reason other than brevity that "the source is not good enough" was left out of the non-exhaustive list of arguments.

I know everyone here agrees with me that the wording is not meant to be interpreted the way I am interpreting it. But users will interpret it this way, presumably in good faith; they already have been interpreting it this way.

I not only agree with PBS's analysis, especially the last sentence, but I think it should probably be inscribed in the policy itself.

My argument, though, has assumed throughout that it is not "what one believes to be a poor citation"; the removal was made, a note was left on the talk page, the "add" party disagreed and re-added the material, and two or three other users all agreed with the "delete" party, but the lone "add" user doesn't recognize 3-1 as a "consensus to delete" and considers the current wording of V to be on their side (that a "consensus to delete" is what is required, rather than a "consensus to add"). Obviously this is not quite as common a problem as a newbie editor adding a citation that doesn't verify the material in general, but it does happen quite a bit. In such cases AGF can only reasonably be taken so far, but with only a slight tweak to the wording of this policy page, to make it say more directly what we all agree it actually means, we might be able to avoid it from the start.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: could you now please give the link(s)/diff(s) to the casus you describe? I don't think we should continue discussing this as a hypothetical example. Doesn't help us one step in any direction.

Also your assumptions on how much problem would be remedied by your proposed addition is tenuous. I don't think it would. "Source doesn't cover mainspace addition" would in most cases be handled without any reference to WP:V, leave alone the footnote: "Source doesn't cover mainspace addition" is understandable easy enough by experienced and non-experienced editors alike. So if we have one editor trying to make a case out of it, I'd like to see that example (not just your summary of it). Yes some editors are Wikilawyering away against common sense, while applicable guidance is clear enough. Adding more detail to the highest level of content policies is, however, something that would rather be adding another point to wikilawyer about, so there's no remedy in that direction to be expected of your proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

...

Per an email I just received from Hijiri88, the only example they appear to be able to produce of an editor wikilawyering about this point appears to be skirting the edges of their topic ban. Where to go from here? A few options:

1. Close the thread, which to me seems most sensible: we're being taken on a wild goose chase here with no demonstrable abuse of the WP:V footnote apart from something already settled elsewhere. There seems to be not enough indication in the wider scale of things that a modification of the WP:V footnote would be a meaningful improvement of the policy.
2. Hijiri88 or someone else produces another example that can be freely discussed here. Failing such example, see previous point (and what I said above about more guidance = more fodder for wikilawyering).
3. Hijiri88 withdraws from the discussion: I suppose, reading comments by others, that the issue raised in this section would soon be settled as "no addition to the policy necessary", which also brings us back to point 1 above.
4. ... (other ideas on how to proceed from here?)

Please let us know which of the above courses of action can be taken (or propose other ones if you can think of more useful steps). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I emailed you a bunch of examples. If you want to copy-paste my email in here feel free to do so, but I don't frankly see the value of using this page to discuss specific instances of disruption caused by dubious interpretations of the current wording of the policy. That's what the noticeboards are for. The mere fact that it has been interpreted thus is evidence enough that it can be interpreted thus, which would justify my proposed (very small) amendment. Heck, you don't even need to read my email -- you need look no further than this very thread to see someone actually try to argue that if a single user thinks any source is good enough, or even thinks a source can be located, that is enough to ‘preserve’ the material. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You sent me one link, which is not "a bunch of examples". I ask you to give us examples that would illustrate the merits of a potential change to a top level content policy. Or link us to whatever discussion elsewhere where we can read some sort of conclusion in the sense of such policy update being recommended or "wrongdoing could have been avoided if the policy had been clearer", or whatever. Too me this all much seems like you trying to get a side-entrance to your prior trouble. Please stop it. Either provide an example that can be discussed freely, or let others decide whether there are significant examples of this or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri... I think most of us are agreeing that the addition of a source (yes, even a flawed source) is enough to temporarily "preserve" the material - pending further discussion... I don't think anyone is arguing that the addition of a flawed source is enough to permanently "preserve" the material. It is looking to me like there is a consensus on this. Can you accept this as being consensus (even if you don't agree with it)? Blueboar (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but only because I don't consider this to be that big a deal, and therefore not worth the amount of grief it has caused me over the last coupla days. There clearly is not a consensus that if three users on the talk page agree that the cited source does not support the material and one user thinks it does and after days of discussion has failed to convince anyone then the material should stay in indefinitely, until some arbitrary "consensus" threshold can be met to remove it, so if it's okay with everyone else I will go on interpreting the ambiguous wording as I always have. This section can be closed, I guess. My apologies to Kww and WhatAmIDoing, who did appear to support not only my interpretation of the policy but also my proposal to amend the wording to reflect this interpretation, where the rest of you only appear to be taking my side on the former. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thus, the actual topic was in fact "consensus" (and how to find it), not a difficulty with the "verifiability" policy. See WP:CONSENSUS. Next time, as one among many possible suggestions: launch an RfC, and list at WP:ANRFC a few weeks later. It may take some time (more than a month), but in the end you'll have a consensus determined, not by the disagreeing parties, but by an outsider. And enough rules to make sure everyone lives by the thus determined outcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (NB saying pretty much the same thing!) Hijiri88 that is the situation that drove all this, I have two things to say. The first is that this sounds awful. The second is that is sounds all four editors failed to use WP:DR to resolve the issue. There are all kinds of ways that a dogged opposition of one can be overcome but you have to use DR cluefully to do it. A different policy statement would not have helped that situation. Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A note, mostly for anyone reading this later: if we have problems with people adding irrelevant sources and claiming that they can keep the content forever under BURDEN, and these problems aren't getting resolved fairly quickly through usual channels (WP:RSN should be your first stop if a quick chat on the talk page doesn't work), then we need to consider changes. Fixing real problems and stopping disputes is never WP:CREEP, even if editors "shouldn't" need to be told something (or told the same thing multiple times on the same page, which has been necessary in for at least one guideline). Links to examples are very helpful when we're trying to fix real problems, so that we can tailor the guidance to reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Live example

BLP variety, sideways involving human penises (but not the example higher on this page), and just launched on a content-related noticeboard: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peter Thiel. Maybe something may be learnt from this example w.r.t. the topics discussed in this talk page section? But maybe let's see how it devolves first. Disregard this message if the BLP factor makes this an unclear example for our current purposes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Apparently at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peter Thiel issues were soon settled.
• This example thus, in my view, illustrates once again that following dispute resolution recommendations (in this case, bringing to an appropriate content-related noticeboard) works best for resolving the kind of issues discussed in this section. None of that seems indicative for a change to WP:V.
• Does anyone have an example where applying appropriate content-related dispute resolution to the kind of WP:V issues discussed in this section did not get the matter solved? Or where framing it as a conduct issue from early on in the discussion led to a swifter solution? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages's only way of escalating a content dispute to a higher authority is to go to RfC, so in any content dispute you're always dealing with a self-selecting group of people. If you find yourself dealing with intransigent editors, your realistic choices are (1) give up, or (2) frame it as a conduct issue. My experience is that framing it as a conduct issue can get rid of specific problem editors, but where the self-selecting group contains many problem editors you won't catch them all and the content issues remain insoluble.—S Marshall T/C 07:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You have omitted the many content-oriented noticeboards in your statement. You can escalate some content disputes to NPOVN, NORN, and RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Method #1:

1. Mainspace edits
2. → Talk page discussion
3. (→ involve relevant WikiProjects)
4. → other steps in dispute resolution:
   • content-related noticeboard(s)
   • Mediation
   • ...
   • RfC
5. Failing to reach a consensus where all editors can live with:
   • take a temporary step back (WP:CCC!), and raise the issue again in a later stage
   • look at possible conduct issues, and take appropriate steps

Method #2:

1. Mainspace edits
2. (→Talk page discussion)
3. (maybe there was some incivility in the talk page discussions, a few mainspace reverts, or whatever) → let's frame the content issue as a conduct issue from the earliest perceived difficulty (ideally even step two can be skipped): involve dramaboards ASAP, ArbCom, and whatnot

I'm still asking for an example that illustrates that Method #2 works better and/or faster for the issue sketched in the OP. My stance is that if the matter is WP:Urgent Method #1 will in practice work faster, as illustrated by the example with which I started this subsection. Even when dealing with intransigent editors: e.g. when one-sided instransigence is the root of the problem you'll hardly ever have to go beyond the content noticeboard (again illustrated by the example with which I started this subsection). For clarity: we're discussing WP:V-related issues here, in particular where the interpretation and application of WP:BURDEN is involved. Not run-of-the-mill vandalism (other policy/guideline), not WP:3RR (other policy/guideline), etc. (such issues are indeed what WP:ANI and other conduct noticeboards are for, and it apparently works very well for such issues: there's hardly ever any drama involved for issues that are not of the mixed conduct/content variety).

So again, I'd be happy to see a WP:BURDEN-related example that shows otherwise: but even then it remains to be discussed whether an update to this policy would address the issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that Hijiri has now accepted that there was no consensus for his proposed changes... I don't think there is any point to finding an example. We can all drop our respective sticks, and end the debate. Blueboar (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Tx, exactly my sentiment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

adding a quote

I'd like to add the following quote to the SPS section:

And then of course, you have this great rise since 2000 of self-published books and books that to all intents and purposes should not be self-published because they are not good enough to published and therefore shouldn’t be self-published.

Does anyone oppose this? It doesn't change the meaning of that section, just illustrates the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't feel strongly about it, but I think it's a non sequitur and I don't know what makes Tom Holland an authority on self-publication. (Personal interest disclosure: I self-published a book in 2006, which sold a couple thousand copies on Lulu before being picked up by a proper publisher in 2008. I feel as if I see both sides of this.)—S Marshall T/C 01:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose adding this because, in my opinion, the rise of low-quality self-published books is not so much their existence, but the ability to find them with search engines. There were plenty of abysmal self-published vanity press books in the 20th century, but the only way to find them was to find them in somebody's attic. So the wording of the proposed addition would just be confusing. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether your quotation might find a more friendly home in an essay. Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using self-published works#The problem with self-published sources would be an option to consider. There might be even better ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks; I was unaware of that essay. I think I'll pursue that, instead. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Back to aligning PRESERVE and BURDEN

So in the wake of the last huge discussion, on Misplaced Pages talk:Editing policy we've thrashed out an addendum to WP:PRESERVE which reads:-

If you restore unsourced information that was removed because of concerns that the material might be original research or unverifiable in any published reliable source, then normally you should provide an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the information being restored shortly afterwards.

I feel that this is pretty obvious stuff but we've had ample evidence that it was causing difficulty. The edit we've agreed goes, I think, halfway towards aligning any perceived conflict between the two policies. Now I propose adding a footnote to WP:BURDEN which specifies when it shouldn't apply. These would include:- (1) vandalistic removals of content; (2) repeated removals of content that are reasonably attributable to a COI or to an attempt to steer an article towards a particular POV; (3) vexatious behaviour, such as a series of content removals that target a particular editor; (4) any content removal that's part of a pattern of disruptive, POINTY or retaliatory behaviour; (5) content removals in articles subject to discretionary sanctions or by editors subject to active Arbcom remedies. The intention behind (4) is to encompass the situation that led to the Arbcom ruling in KWW -v- The Rambling Man. I hope, and think, this should be an uncontroversial clarification and would welcome wording suggestions.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've objected to and reverted that change for reasons I've stated on the talk page there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove "normally" and replace it with "absolutely and without exception" and you've got something.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are a few small exceptions. Obviously bad-faith challenges can be ignored (think "But I CHALLENGEd the verifiability of 'Humans normally have four fingers and a thumb'!"). However, about #2 in particular, I tend to disagree that my (possibly wrong, possibly COI-motivated, possibly POV-pushing) belief that you have a COI or are POV pushing is a functional exception. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not an improvement - the "long standing" language currently in the policy is clear and fairly unambiguous. This proposal adds ambiguity that will cause far more arguments than it would resolve. Blueboar (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)