Wikipedia talk:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"
 | Wikipedia essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" page. |
|
| Archives: 1 |
Contradicts existing consensus
This essay contradicts basic consensus on how to edit policies and guidelines, as well as WP:BRD and WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- How does it contradict WP:V? Note the sentence "If it added unsourced or poorly-sourced information, note that in the revert summary." I also don't see how this contradicts WP:BRD. We're not saying "don't revert", just "give a better reason than 'no consensus'". PSWG1920 (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- In that you're trying to place the burden of evidence upon the person that removes the information, rather than on the person that added the information.
- Other examples are gaming and point-making by editing policies, guidelines, or essays that apply to a dispute in which you are involved in order to make those articles more in line with your own viewpoints within the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- This does not shift any burden, it only advises a reverter to give a better reason than "no consensus". It does not put the onus on the reverter to defend that reason. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Moreover, as an essay this is merely advice, nothing more. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, you might just want to move it to userspace. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why shouldn't it remain as a mainspace essay? It says at the top that it's only advice. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)- Oh, I see now. Well, I have altered the wording a bit to give it a less authoritative tone, and I still think this idea makes sense and would have a fairly wide consensus if people read it. I don't know how to test that though. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I find this an excellent essay. I've seen numerous cases where people revert an edit without telling exactly what in it they don't like, saying only "no consensus" or "discuss first." Every possible edit can be reverted with the argumentation "no consensus" or "discuss first", but doing that isn't really helpful. Offliner (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm glad you like it! While writing the essay it occurred to me that if one can't point out a substantive problem with an edit, then it has actually passed a relatively high bar. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I find this an excellent essay. I've seen numerous cases where people revert an edit without telling exactly what in it they don't like, saying only "no consensus" or "discuss first." Every possible edit can be reverted with the argumentation "no consensus" or "discuss first", but doing that isn't really helpful. Offliner (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, you might just want to move it to userspace. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The onus *is* on the reverter to defend their edit. A revert is an edit itself, and like all edits, you must be able to explain why you made it, either immediately, or whenever anyone asks you. In fact, reverting is rude and stops the normal wiki mode of edit-edit-edit , so it is much more important to explain a revert than almost any other edit. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've been doing several edits lately, is there anything I can do better? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Applicability when debate ongoing?
Recently here Nochnoy Dozor (pressure group) an editor attempted to use WP:DRNC as the reason why his repreated article renaming should not be reverted. The topic was under ACTIVE discussion on the articles talk page, with clearly no consensus yet reached. My impression is that the WP:DRNC is keyed towards reverts without, or instead of discussion. Can this article please be more explicit as to whether it is okay to revert a change absent consensus which preempts any outcome of recent, ongoing discussion on TALK? --Jaymax (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- The first thing to keep in mind is that this is only an essay, meaning that it is advice, and not about what is permissible per se. Furthermore, the point of this essay is that pages will not get very far if bold edits are regularly reverted for no good reason. If discussion is ongoing, then presumably there is a better argument against a change than "no consensus", so my suggestion would be to just summarize that reason in the revert summary.
- I would also opine that this principle does not particularly apply to article renaming. Feel free to edit this essay if you'd like. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- The objective of using the talk page is to come to edits on the actual wiki page. In fact, the objective of working on a wiki is always to get edits on the wiki page.
- While it's also nice to discuss, it helps to edit the page, even if you think consensus isn't yet reached on the discussion page. This is because you can never reach consensus on the discussion page alone, you must make edits. If the edit is reverted, then perhaps it didn't have consensus yet. Inversely if your only grounds to revert is because people are still chatting, you have no grounds to revert.
- The only reason you revert is if (A) you disagree with the edit and (B) you really really can't find any way to just edit it into shape. There's no "procedural grounds" you can use for a revert. Either you revert because you personally disagree with an edit, and see no reason or manner to edit or leave alone otherwise (so as a last resort), or you do not revert at all!
- If your first thought wrt a good faith edit is "I need to revert this", then your thought was wrong. If your first thought wrt an edit is "this is not a good faith edit", then odds are you are STILL wrong.
- I don't know the exact circumstances, but in your case, the way you describe it, it was probably wrong to revert. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge?
This essay could perhaps be merged into Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I was unaware of that essay when I created this one, otherwise I probably would have just added to it. What do others think? PSWG1920 (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- To me, this essay specifically explores the side of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary that abuts Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Parameters Of Applicapility
Damian Yerrick's edit is based on his experience that "On policy pages, even minor rephrases get reverted unless they've already been discussed on talk.". This is not the experience that I've had.
Also, this is not the scope of the article wp:brd already covers this material.174.3.111.148 (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't restore due to "no consensus"
Can the restoration of material also be included here? For example:
- please discuss on talk page first for consensus
- restore sourced info; no consensus on talk page
- please do not remove info without consensus
- restored sourced info - there is NO consensus to delete all of this sourced info
The user invovled did not hardly discussed any of the material he insisted on restoring. Chesdovi (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposal:Promote "Don't revert due solely to 'no consensus'" essay to a guideline
 |
|
I think this important essay deserves more attention as too many people too easily forget how damaging and disruptive reverting with a curt "no consensus" edit summary can be, which is exactly what is discouraged here.
With this certified by consensus to be a guideline, editors who so curtly revert can be reminded that it's against guidelines, and editors who continue to do it regularly can be sanctioned accordingly. As a guideline, editors are likely to adhere to it much better, which will improve the editing experience, and ultimately the encyclopedia. Thank you for considering this proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Poll
- Oppose. First, an RFC is supposed to be presented neutrally (see WP:RFC). This one has not been. Second, the content is too specific and pointy to be warranted as a Wikipedia guideline. Third, this is a clear case of WP:CREEP. Fourth, the content is not broadly accepted. A great number of editors do accept the reversion of edits as simply lacking consensus. ArbCom itself has stressed the need for discussion first, and editing later – especially in policy and guidelines. See the decision in this recent case, for example: "A higher standard for participation and consensus exists for changes to policies and guidelines, as stated in Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus"; and later: "In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes." Editors should not be sanctioned for insisting, "curtly" or otherwise, on the practice that ArbCom encourages: that consensus be established first. NoeticaTea? 01:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Support merging to Wikipedia:Reverting and upgrading that page to an editing guideline. If more people followed this guidance, it would be for the good of everyone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as instruction creep. It's a good principle though. Perhaps a shorter piece of guidance could be added to an existing guideline on reverting, or edit warring, or what have you. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per both Shooter and Noetica. Tony (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose. Shooter and Noeticaso present very good points. In addition, there do exist pages in which very strong consensus exists for a particular version, such as The Mousetrap. Reverting someone who acted against that consensus and encouraging them to discuss it instead is rather helpful. Furthermore, this would exacerbate editing disputes on controversial pages, where consensus is slowly and painfully built via discussion. Enacting this as a guideline would allow months of painful consensus-building to be thrown out the window because one editor decided they didn't like it. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)