Wikipedia talk:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"/Archive 1

Archive 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)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

}} 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. Noetica^Tea? 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)
• Strong oppose - If consensus for a particular version has already been established, then nobody should be editing the page except for minor copyediting unless a new consensus has been established. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 13:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Shouldn't be more than an essay: Is it curt and unadvisable? Yeah. Does that mean write a policy or guideline forbidding it? No pbp 03:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: this essay is vague, and it doesn't handle some typical situations when reverting with "no consensus for change" edit summary is absolutely OK (eg. when Editor A adds the content that was discussed on talk page last several days with unambiguous consensus to avoid its inclusion). In other words, this essay needs quite a lot of editing in order to become a viable guideline. That said, I see no good reason to promote this essay instead of simply changing WP:Consensus policy to mention the issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This small (but I have po agree, painful) issue does not require a huge text. What is more, much of advice in this essay is very generic and applies to many other editing actions. I would support adding a short section into WP:Consensus. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose.: As a factual matter, a revert for no consensus is accurate. There was an editor that supplied the original text, another editor who changed it, and perhaps a third editor who thought the original was better. That's not a consensus for the change until there is some discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't need yet more instruction-creep, with yet more hidden "rules" about what editors may and may not do, which many will fall foul of just because they never saw the "rule". We don't need yet more things for people to wikilawyer about. We don't need yet more restrictions on what editors can do, moving yet further from the idea that we just use common sense. Etc etc... JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Withdraw proposal. The essence of this essay is already in policy, at WP:CONSENSUS, in the 2nd paragraph under Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing. I and many others have missed it. Efforts to give this paragraph a separate heading so this is less likely to happen have so far failed. See WT:CONSENSUS and WP:CONSENSUS history for more about that. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Over at WP:Consensus there is a discussion of a similar proposal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Little question about "no consensus"

I just translated this essay into Korean Wikipedia, but does "no consensus" also can mean "not (a) consensus"? I think reverting as both "there was no consensus" and "it is not a consensus" should be prohibited. --kwan-in (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think they mean the same thing, or the difference is so small that it doesn't matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It might differ in Korean. Better elaborate by using an example. Serten (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

The notion of "parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes" is sometimes not very helpful, as the rationale "no consensus" actually is being used to avoid discussion. I therefore introduced some suggestions of actually start discussios and help both sides to understand each other better. As well some see also WP:Essays are now part of the full text. Serten (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC) I agree that the previous version was no use for a guideline - but as an essay it lacked as well some needed details. I hope to have improved the quality insofar.

Two wrongs make a right

The lead says: "Ask yourself, will two wrongs making a right be best for the editors and the readers. If you believe so, slow down, reread talk, verify sources and pause before acting." So we're endorsing two wrongs make a right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"Don't revert due solely to no consensus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Don't revert due solely to no consensus. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –xeno^talk 13:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Images are bizarre

The images (and captions) on this page are bizarre, and seem to have no relevance to the article. Why is there a link to Transhumance?? Why does the text "By intense stonewalling, Jackson helped the good guys win the war between the states, right?" include a link to Names of the American Civil War?? And, finally, why does a picture showing five referees all holding a hand up have a caption "There seems to be no consensus amongst these referees" when they seem to have a strong consensus?Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The image of Jackson has the additional problem of playing ironically with the Civil War. Slavery and related things are too horrible to be funny or to be used for a quick laugh. "Stonewalling" in WP is not good, but fighting in order to deny the most basic human rights to 4 million human beings is something that you cannot compare to it, not even ironically. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Just changed the stone wall image. Feel free to replace with a better one. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)