Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

Reverting just because you think something should be discussed more

The closing of this discussion is under discussion. See below. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

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)

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.

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)