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

Reorganizing and re-writing "The problem with a 'no consensus' revert" section.

The present The problem with a "no consensus" revert section seems to offer three issues with a no consensus revert: (1) it's detrimental to consensus building, (2) it's uncivil, and (3) it is contrary to BRD. However, these three points are mashed together and unnecessarily repeated. To fix these issues I am reorganizing and re-writing this section in stages. Let me know if I go too far with any step and I'll slow down. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• A "no consensus revert" is a revert that has no consensus. Not the exotic definition introduced here, and now reverted by me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Where in the text you have restored does it say anything to the effect that a "no consensus revert" is a revert that has no consensus? Or is that definition found somewhere else? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I withdraw this question for now. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: It occurs to me that we can resolve your concern by restoring the reverted text and then replacing "no consensus revert" with "no consensus edit summary" throughout. (If you do not respond to this post I will assume you agree. See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"No consensus" reverts on policy pages

Someone cited this page during an edit war on WP:BLP as a reason not to revert their edit. However, to me "no consensus" seems like a rather valid reason to revert, given that policy pages document consensus. In that sense, a "no consensus" revert would be similar to an "unsourced" revert. I though maybe that would be worth clarifying on this page? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• This page is an essay. It's not a policy or a guideline. – The Grid (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Well, in theory policy pages document consensus, but consensus can change. So it would be more precise to say that policy pages document consensus at the time they were drafted. If someone makes a change that improves a policy or guideline then why keep the old text just because it is old?

To your question: Working backward, if an editor cites this page during an edit war then their attention should be drawn to the How to respond to a "no consensus" edit summary section of this essay. In short, they should not revert a "no consensus" reversion. With regard to the original "no consensus" revert, see The problem with a "no consensus" edit summary section of this article. The reasoning there applies equally to policy and guideline pages. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In other words, an editor should link to WP:NOCONSENSUS with the second bullet point addressing WP:BLP pages:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. – The Grid (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• An editor restoring the original text should give a reason other than "no consensus." And, in fact, that is what happened with the first revert in our example. Later in the war, an editor justified restoring the original text by saying "This is the long standing version in BLP." which gives no substantive reason for the revert or the RFC recommendation.

The living persons exception at NOCONSENSUS seems pretty clearly addressed to main, rather than Wikipedia, namespace articles. Even if it applies to BLP, it only applies when there is a lack of consensus, and that occurs only after a discussion takes place that reaches an impasse. See Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling#Claiming consensus supports the status quo when it doesn't.

Better, perhaps, for the later editor to have said "preserving the status quo pending the outcome of discussion per WP:STATUSQUO" and, since it wasn't already taking place, to have started a talk page discussion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Explanation for recent undo.

Hi. Recently made this undo to Butwhatdoiknow's edit. My reasoning for doing so is that by inserting the word, the sentence now appears to essentially be advising editors that if they have no real objection to a change, then they should not invoke the status quo procedures. This now makes little to no sense (because why would anybody invoke against changes if they have no real objections to them?), and is totally useless text taking up space, and to tell the truth the existing text before the change was made was not much better. Huggums537 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you opening up a talk discussion. How about changing the existing text to:

Editors should not implement either of these procedural practices without an accompanying substantive objection to a change. See WP:STONEWALLING.

- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me if there are no other objections. Huggums537 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow, it has now been 2 weeks since your proposed change above, and there have been no other objections. I think it will be safe for me to go ahead and boldly make the change per this discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

When the revert-editor is not active

Drawing attention to Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#How to respond to a "no consensus" edit summary, what to do if the person is seen not be active in three days from his 'contrib' page? Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Has that happened to you or are you just wondering? Seems like a pretty rare case. If it ever did happen to me I suppose I'd wait another four days and then re-revert with an edit summary that says "no substantive reason for revert provided in edit summary or at talk," linking "talk" to the talk page discussion section.

• P.S. - I know you're currently dealing with someone who did provide a substantive reason in their edit summary. In that case, I'd probably state on the talk page why I think my original edit does not violate WP:NPOV, wait another four days, and then re-revert with an edit summary that says "no reply to explanation on talk that original edit provided a neutral point of view."

- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering. Understanding the rules of wikipedia. Thanks for your insights. That edit-case has been dealt with. Kawrno Baba (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)