Wikipedia talk:Reverting

Maintaining non-status-quo during discussion if clear-cut contravention of policies

I have removed the recent addition of the following to the list of exceptions to the rule that you keep the status quo while disputed content is discussed:

* Clear-cut contravention of policies or guidelines. A status quo version that clearly violates an explicit policy or guideline is not favored during a dispute. Exceptions to guidelines can be made, but the burden is on the party arguing for an exception. But if there is dispute over whether policy or guidance is violated, then the status quo is favored.

The problem with this is that if there's a dispute, then it isn't a clear-cut contravention. With a clear-cut contravention, you fix it, explain it, and everyone else says, "Oh, I see." Everything else in the exception list is a case where the damage done by the status quo if it is wrong is so severe that it makes more sense to assume it's wrong until proven otherwise. With a typical contravention of policies or guidelines, the sky won't fall if it stays wrong for a few days or weeks while the community determines that it's wrong.

This exception largely takes back the entire status-quo-during-discussion advice and invites edit wars while people discuss whether there is a clear-cut contravention. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"if there's a dispute, then it isn't a clear-cut contravention" is not true. Editors can be in agreement on what the guideline requires, but disagree about whether an exception should be made. In that case, the version that doesn't break the guideline should stand. That certainly doesn't "take back" the concept of favoring the status quo. But that may be a subtlety not worth going into, since the essay isn't binding, so I don't care to fight you on it. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 20:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

While I can see a situation in which editors agree there is a clear-cut contravention, it would happen so rarely as to make mentioning it wp:KUDZU. Especially since, as pointed out, it would just create a new issue which could give rise to an edit war. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:REVERT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:REVERT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 3 § Wikipedia:REVERT until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)