Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

Reverting just because you think something should be discussed more

Is it good practice to repeatedly revert an edit, and not give any explanation why you think the new version is worse, just insist it "should be discussed more" before making an edit?[1] I don't feel that there can be any discussion on content if there's no one actually arguing the previous version is better. (t · c) buidhe 17:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you're bringing this here. This is a dispute that is being disussed on the article Talk page, and it looks like your "bold" change of the article to a disambig page is unacceptable to everyone. You should continue the discussion and not gut the article again.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I am planning to let the discussion run its course. If you look at the history, The Banner made 2 reverts without articulating an actual objection to the content change. Is that generally considered a good practice? This page specifies that it's about editors disagreeing about the content, but what about reverts made on other grounds? (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The consensus policy says that all edits "should" (not a rule) include substantive and informative explanations, especially "when reverting another editor's good-faith work." For more along these lines, see this list.

For a best practice when another editor doesn't explain, see How to respond to a "no consensus" edit summary. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Historically, should is pretty strong wording in policy and guidelines. Some gray area is necessary because individual situations can be complex, but if an editor routinely edits in a way that goes against how policy says they should, and repeatedly refuses to back down or change directions, I would expect them to eventually face sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

"I would expect them to eventually face sanctions." I have not seen that happen. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• As I stated earlier, this does not belong here. There's nothing wrong with The Banner's reverts. Both included a reasonable explanation. Buidhe's change was not a "new version"; they gutted the article, which, as was pointed out to them, necessitated an AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)}}
• It's generally not good practice (WP:DNRNC explains why) and as a procedural matter, yes, The Banner obviously should have provided some specific objection; if they couldn't think of any then they shouldn't revert. "More discussion is needed" on its own isn't a valid objection because it's basically saying "other people might object", which is impossible to realistically answer (what, precisely, are people supposed to discuss if nobody has stated a specific objection?) Turning an article into a DAB with no discussion is extremely WP:BOLD but is still allowed, meaning you can't just revert someone on the basis that they're not supposed to do it or on the basis that they need to get unspecified "permission" for it. Derailing things further into procedural matters is also unhelpful, of course, but... I'm particularly bothered by The Banner's response here - the unexplained initial revert, and even a second revert, were not ideal but things like that aren't uncommon and "the objection is obvious, take it to talk" isn't totally unreasonable. The fact that they then responded to the request on talk that they themselves asked for by plainly refusing to give an actual explanation - while reverting again! - strains good faith to the point where it seems hard to characterize The Banner's behavior as anything but WP:STONEWALLing. It seems to me that The Banner first demanded discussions, then refused to engage in them when they were opened on talk, which is much more serious of a problem than the reverts themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Buidhe is not requesting a third opinion regarding their dust up with The Banner. They asked "Is it good practice to repeatedly revert an edit, and not give any explanation why you think the new version is worse, just insist it "should be discussed more" before making an edit?" Can we all agree that the answer to that question is "no"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk)

Revert of removal of improper closure

User:Bbb23, as I stated in my edit summary -

Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins." - Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure

You are an involved editor. So it would seem your closure was inappropriate. You reverted my change and, in your edit summary, demanded that I "leave it alone." Other than because you said so, why should I leave your improper closure alone? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not WP:INVOLVED. And this discussion should not take place here, either. You really need to find something else to do than spend so much time in project space (about 45% of your edits).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED says "Non-administrators closing discussions . . . should not have been involved in the discussion itself . . ." I'm having trouble reconciling this text with your statement that you are not involved in the discussion you closed.

I'm also interested in hearing your thoughts regarding why this discussion - which seemed to be near its conclusion - needed to be formally closed rather than allowed to naturally come to an end. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a non-administrator. This is my last comment on this subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

My bad. Here's more of the applicable WP:INVOLVED text: "Non-administrators closing discussions . . . are held to the same standards [as administrators]; editors closing discussions should not have been involved in the discussion itself . . ." (bold added). I hope you will help me reconcile this text with your statement that you are not involved in the discussion you closed. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC) @Bbb23, please reply to this post. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)