4 ms·

Ah good catch, I missed that. I agree that they probably could have gone through WP:BRD and gotten this into the article. The article I linked in my original c

Ah good catch, I missed that. I agree that they probably could have gone through WP:BRD and gotten this into the article. The article I linked in my original comment is different though and the user Valjean maintains a number of pages that they revert edits from and don't really engage in BRD in good faith.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago
Would you like to look at a particular situation in detail with me?
- Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
  Without knowing which 'particular situation' you're talking about, I can just save your confusion. There are articles in Wikipedia which will _always_ convey a certain perspective. Edits to them will always be reverted. The reverters will not engage with the audit process. The senior staff will not challenge those reverters. The procedure to handle this situation will not work. Arguments will be made that make literally no sense and will yet be accepted. If you persist in trying to make those changes your account will be banned on spurious grounds.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    Well, that's not supposed to happen, obviously, not in the way you put it anyway. But definitely give me an article/situation on Wikipedia where you feel that this is the case, and I'll take a look with you. Diffs appreciated!
    - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
      The user whimsicalism is probably more interested in discussing this, I'd take it up with them. I sense that this conversation will lead to a great deal of wordy justifications for the unjustifiable. I've already said that's part of the dissuasion process, I'm not interested in participating in it. These discussions were already had at great length on reddit r/wikiinaction and resulted only in the subreddit being castrated.