Wikipedia talk:Stable version

Idiotic definition[edit]

Ya'll know that this definition:

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

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

I’m not sure why you’re so irate. You’re absolutely correct. The pre-dispute revision is the “stable” revision, in an administrative context. It does not matter how long it has been “stable” for. “For any period of time” is key because the phrase “stable version” is often used as a rationale to revert in content disputes, which is wholly unsupported by (and contrary to) actual policy. Restoring a stable version is a specific admin action authorized by policy, nothing more. Outside of this narrow context, it is not a legitimate concept. Bold changes are encouraged as policy, and stonewalling bold changes for no specific reason other than “stablity” is disruptive. So a non-admin invoking the “stable version”, as Icewhiz did here, is not a legitimate reason to revert. Nothing within policy or practice supports this concept. Many people don’t understand this, and that’s the specific point this explanatory page is explaining. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not assert STABLE as a rationale - I made a request - " Please discuss on the talk page, as opposed to edit-warring over content in the STABLE version of this article". My rationale was - "Already discussed elsewhere. Reported in Polish media as well - so UNDUE has no legs here." - referring to RSN, Rafał Pankowski's talk, and additional reporting in Polish language media (relevant in regards to UNDUE). Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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