Wikipedia talk:Revert only when necessary/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Differences between 0RR and ROWN

• ORR encourages editors to improve upon but don't remove changes you don't like, it is unclear whether the "necessary" in "revert only when necessary" applies to changes you don't like or not.
• ROWN perpetuates an "us" vs "them" mentality of one point of view somehow "winning" out over another.
• There is much less chance of direct or inadvertent censorship with 0RR compared to ROWN.
• There is much less chance of viewpoint mischaracterization with 0RR compared to ROWN as 0RR will encourage an article to be a superset of all viewpoints and sources instead of one side stifled into accepting a reverted version of an article.
• The 0RR allows editors to be bold as it encourages the inclusion other editors changes in addition to your own changes, the ROWN discourages being bold.
• Any "reverting" of a fellow editor's changes or additions that were made in good faith can have the effect of stifling contribution to wikipedia and/or inflaming tensions. When not obvious or simple vandalism editors should be given the benefit of the doubt that their contributions add something to an article.
• Clue: some of the editors that have come out against WP:0RR are the ones supporting a merge of that to ROWN... zen master T 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Right now, ROWN is a Frankenstein creation of text from many pages. I'm hoping to see much of the 0RR text merged into ROWN so the "revert-limiting" rules can all be in one place. I highly encourage you to mercilessly edit ROWN until you believe it's more satisfactory. Trust me, it needs it. ;) Incorporate as much of the text from other proposals as you feel is appropriate. Once ROWN is in better shape, we can start gauging whether it should be a guideline. Carbonite | Talk 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, I support merging in order to avoid an wildgrowth of guidelines. Only question: should it be titled ROWN or ORR? I guess ORR is best as title because it's more provocative and easier to remember. Next it should be made clear in the text that in practice ORR is not always doable or beneficial - adding superfluous or deviating phrases at certain places can be detrimental for an article. Harald88 22:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that ROWN would be a better title since "Reverting only when necessary" is a superset of 0RR (and 1RR, etc...). Also, as you pointed out, the 0RR is quite often not very realistic in practice. Carbonite | Talk 23:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I would share your thinking if this was either an article or a policy. However, a guideline has different goals, it is foremost to be inspiring and for that a catchy title such as 0RR is much better; a guideline doesn't need to follow the structure of a patent proposal. Anyway, after voting for merging, we may vote for which title to give it; without a merge it's not worth to waste much time on that question. Harald88 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you want to merge the 0RR text here if you were/are against 0RR? How does being against 0RR make a merge to ROWN seem reasonable to you? The 0RR is not a "revert-limiting" rule it frees editors from the limitations of thinking in terms of "reverting". zen master T 19:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually not against the 0RR. I was against calling it a guideline before editors had even seen the page. That's why I tried to make it a proposed guideline. But that's in the past now. I'm created this more general page as a central location for any of the X-revert rules or other guidelines for avoiding or limiting reverts. This page is still in it's infant stages, so I would welcome any edits that help it to mature. Carbonite | Talk 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Only someone that is against something would move it to user space over a header dispute. What you call more "general" I call "ineffectual" and "tangential". Given that 0RR and ROWN are distinct it would be helpful if you withdrew your merge request, let the community decide whether one or both guidelines garner wide spread support. zen master T 20:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already explained at length that I moved the page because it was not a guideline and Peter expressed no interest in having it as a proposed guideline. But again, that's not especially relevant to this proposal. I'm rather baffled that you criticize a proposal that I've already admited is in "infant stages" and needs to be edited "mercilessly". Why not change the parts you disagree with? I see ROWN as a superset of 0RR (as well as 1RR and other reversion guidelines), not as a replacement. If you believe that ROWN fails at this, please change it. Carbonite | Talk 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You mischaracterize Peter's argument when you say "Peter expressed no interest in having it a proposed guideline". Peter's argument was that guidelines are exactly rules of thumb followed by a small or large numer of editors, none of them are "policy". Only policies are proposed, guidelines are simple followed if you agree with the underlying principles. Since ROWN is in its infant stages (and all other reasons) I repeat my request for you to withdraw your merge request. zen master T 20:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's let the merge proposal run its course. Carbonite | Talk 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's ok by me if you let a tainted merge proposal run its course, though it would make sense to withdraw it given the many differences between the two guidelines. zen master T 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• As stated earlier, the 0RR is idealistic and entirely not grounded in reality. People frequently make good-faith-but-ill-advised edits to add to an article. These must be reverted to improve article quality. Anybody who claims otherwise seriously needs to spend an hour on RC patrol, in order to get a clue what he's actually talking about. Radiant_>|< 22:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I, personally, disagree with merging this article. 0RR is an entirely different "guideline", and it is my opinion that it should remain such. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of 0RR

I think Radiant may misunderstand the fundamental point of the 0RR guideline. Here he adds "The problem with this 'rule' is that it makes it impossible to get rid of good-faith-but-ill-advised edits, which are plentiful". The point of the 0RR guideline is to give fellow contributors the benefit of the doubt and include their information in addition to any information you want to add. I don't think there is a wikipedia policy that defines "ill-advised edits", what do you mean? The 0RR accounts for the possibility a fellow editors contribution may need re-wording and cleaning up, but the point is to ensure all information and viewpoints are retained. zen master T 23:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think people can either put sources for their material in the edit summary, the external links section, or on the talk page. I'd rather not give contributors the benefit of the doubt, since it makes more sense to scrutinize any information added to Wikipedia. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of having an Wikipedia:Assume good faith guideline if we shouln't give contributors the benefit of the doubt as you suggest? Information can be scrutinized without being reverted. The danger of censorship is too high, though I suspect reverting will always happen over factual disagreements, which is separately why each and every viewpoint and piece of information needs a citation or statement from who it is from, and an article should be a superset of all relevant information and viewpoints. I think of this as "the principle of preserving information and viewpoints", perhaps we should create Wikipedia:Preserving information and viewpoints or some such, though 0RR and/or ROWN may be more than adequate. zen master T 21:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandal-fighters can't possibly be held accountable for verifying every piece of edited information on Wikipedia. It is the duty of the contributing editor to verify the information they are adding, especially if it is a major factual change to an article (like changing the birth date of somebody or saying, "It was later discovered by Time magazine that Jonny Politician really had gay tendencies"). I don't get involved in disputes discussed on talk pages, but if an editor forgoes that process and simply makes changes, I think it is the duty of a vandal-fighter to revert the information until it can be verified by more qualified people. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If an edit is obvious vandalism it should be reverted. However, the 0RR and/or the principle of preserving information and viewpoint only recommends that you should not instinctively revert content that you are unsure about and/or content that may need verification -- though feel free to add to and/or enhance it. Just because a new editor didn't dot all their "i"s and cross all their "t"s is not justification for reverting, a revert is analogous to a slap in the face. Basically, there is a big difference between someone adding (potentially missing) information and viewpoints, and someone changing (and potentially mischaracterizing) pre-existing information and viewpoint, the former should be encouraged under the principle of collaborative development, the latter deserves scrutiny but each (external) viewpoint should be allowed to present itself. The wikipedia article itself should have no viewpoint other than to report on the subject and the various viewpoints and information within the subject. zen master T 22:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What's so bad about a revert?

I so no reason to have a rule against *individual* reverts. We should all promptly remove certain types of things, such as unverified information. Leaving potential misinformation out of respect for the contributor ignores WP:V. Whie we WP:AGF is a guideline, WP:V is a non-negotiable founding policy. Verifiability means we *don't* assume things to be true, just because somebody says they are. If you say something I doubt, and give no sources, and I can't find any, I'm entitled to revert you. Revert wars are harmful, but individual reverts are often beneficial. They force somebody to actually justify their change. Also, discouraging reverts would merely mean that people would find "imaginitive" means of doing reverts, by doing edits that accomplish the same result, but aren't technically reverts. --Rob 20:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, we shouldn't have a rule against reverts. This proposal wouldn't restrict reverts, but instead encourage editors to avoid reverts unless they're necessary to maintain the quality of an article. Vandalism, unverified information, and just plain terrible edits would qualify as "necessary" for being reverted. This proposal may eventually become a guideline, but never an official policy. The WP:3RR is the Wikipedia's only official policy on reverts and I believe it should stay that way. Carbonite | Talk 20:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is that the peopple most needing of being reverted will try to claim that this is a rule against reverts and use it to cause more problems. You should really try instead to make a guideline called Wikipedia:Don't make the edit in the first place unless it's necessary. I realize that goes against the whole be bold thing, but the vast majority of edits being made here are ill-advised, and reverting is the best way to handle them. It'd be different if the editors were limited to people with proven writing skills, undertanding of the purpose of an encyclopedia, and knowledge of the topics they edit, but since Wikipedia presumes that anyone and everyone can show up and make whatever change they want, any guideline trying to make it more difficult for people to undo these ill-conceived edits can only be a bad thing. DreamGuy 06:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we keep bad changes. But reverts aren't the only way of fixing it. In the case of "just plain terrible edits" it may be possible to reword the edit, but keep some of it. In cases of unverified information, it may be possible to ask the user to check their facts, or add a {{fact}} flag. This guideline is about minimising the use of the ugly slap in the face that is a revert. Stevage 06:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposed policy. There are many instances where it doesn't make sense to keep an edit, and suggesting people simply reword things implies that all edits are inherently worthwhile. Not so. We're not a social club, we're an encyclopedia project. I'm as shy about revert wars as the next guy, but there are plenty of cases where I think reverts are essential, positive, and necessary. There is no way I would ever support anything like this policy. --Improv 01:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I oppose this proposed policy too. Gene Nygaard 15:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We're in many respects a social club too. I've seen a fair number of problems caused purely and simply by an insensitive revert. Had the user reworded the bad edit, there would have been no problem. The revert itself - the feeling of "you thought my edit was completely and utterly worthless" caused many headaches, and careful discussion afterwards. That's what this policy is about. Reverting a crappy edit made by a newbie/anon who will never come back is one thing. Reverting a good-faith (but perhaps badly worded, unsourced etc) edit by a member of the community is rude, and if absolutely necessary should be accompanied with a personal explanation of why you're doing it. Personal feelings *do* matter, because otherwise they lead to arguments and emotional editing, which gets in the way of the primary goal, that of producing an encyclopaedia. Stevage 15:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that this is a proposed guideline, not a proposed policy. I think that's an important distinction because it's meant to essentially be a "best practices" guide rather than a mandatory rule. I agree with Improv that there certainly are many instances where an edit can't be kept and a revert is necessary. I've done RC patrol countless times and I don't think twice about reverting many of the edits I find. This proposal is meant to encourage editors (especially newbies) to think about whether an edit should be reverted or incorporated.

For example, instead of threatening an editor who's prone to reverts with the three-revert rule, you could say "Please, revert only when necessary." Since ROWN contains information on the 3RR, that would also be considered a warning should the editor continue to revert. Again, this proposal is meant to centralize various guidelines about reverts and provide another means to discourage revert wars. It absolutely doesn't mean that an editor can't revert if a revert is necessary. As always, editors are free to disergard (or edit) this guideline should they feel it doesn't suit them. Carbonite | Talk 16:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is more important. I stand by every reversion I have done. I don't think we should need to tiptoe around the fact that some edits are crap, nor should we feel bound to find a way to rephrase crap when the article was perfectly good before. Now, mind you, it would be polite not to use the word crap, but many edits are not worth keeping, and this guideline will make people shy about doing the right thing. It should not be instituted. --Improv 17:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

To make myself absolutely clear, I oppose it as a guideline as well. Note that the header does say "a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, process, or informational page". Gene Nygaard 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it does say "Revert only when necessary", not "don't revert at all". Dan100 (Talk) 10:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting would only be necessary if the edit is vandalism right? If an edit is not vandalism then it has to in some way be beneficial to an article. zen master T 16:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You've obviously never done RC patrol. It often is absolutely necessary to revert an edit that isn't vandalism. What if someone adds this to the George W. Bush artcile: "George Bush live in big house and make laws. We study him in school." This doesn't meet the definition of simple vandalism, yet it would be instantly reverted since it's not beneficial in any way to the article. Unless we expand the definition of vandalism to include good faith (but worthless) edits, it's simply impossible to say that we should only revert vandalism. Carbonite | Talk 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I would classify that as testing which is vandalism, though we should be extra careful about not biting the newbies in that situation. Do you have any other examples? zen master T 17:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! Testing is not vandalism by any definition. Newbie tests are the first example listed in what vandalism is not. Vandalism is narrowly defined for a reason and expanding it so you can say "Only revert vandalism" is nonsensical. If you're looking for other examples, do RC patrol for about 20 minutes. Trust me, you'll never again say that only vandalism should be reverted. Carbonite | Talk 17:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Testing outside the sandbox is vandalism. Let's analyze this issue for the most common case, when an editor adds info, usually critical of the mainstream view, to an article by what rationale is that edit ever outright "reverted'? Citations may need to be added, text re-worded but the underlying information must have some value to the article. zen master T 17:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Testing (in or out of the sandbox) is not vandalism. You won't find a single policy or guideline or probably even a single other user that holds such a belief. In addition, criticism of a mainstream view is far from the most commonly reverted type of edit. I think you're demonstrating that you're rather out of touch with the reality of what gets reverted on Wikipedia. The number of just edits that have no benefit to an article (but aren't vandalism) is many times (probably several orders of magnitude more) than the number of edits critical of some mainstream view. I'm not going to fall into the trap of debating when you aren't even going to pay attention to what I wrote. Carbonite | Talk 17:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am saying testing outside the sandbox is vandalism in the sense that it is not beneficial to the article but we should give the benefit of the doubt and not necessarily immediately revert, though if it is say a high traffic part of wikipedia like the main page then it probably should be reverted. You brought up the newbie testing example to make a case for your argument that reverts have to happen in cases of non-vandalism edits, yet the "What vandalism is not" page you linked to is actually direct evidence against your argument, the page states "...On the contrary, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Sandbox (e.g. using the test template message) where they can keep making their tests. (Sometimes they will even revert their own changes.)". Which means don't necessarily immediately revert newbie testing, "greet them warmly", give them the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to correct their own mistake, which is exactly the same principle as the WP:0RR... zen master T 18:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Only for Vandals

I only revert for blatant vandalism, otherwise I manually rollback only because it allows me to add an edit summary. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a difference between the two :-) Dan100 (Talk) 21:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it's pressing the [Rollback] button as opposed to going to an earlier version and pressing save. The only reason I do the latter is to add an edit summary. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, so what you meant to say was "I only rollback for blatant vandalism, otherwise I manually revert only because it allows me to add an edit summary." :-) Dan100 (Talk) 10:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

1RR redirect problem

In order to judge if it's a good idea to merge (instead of link) 1RR, I need to compare 1RR with ROWN. But instead of 1RR I am redirected to ROWN, without a link in sight! In view of the above objection by Dan100, this has the same effect as sabotage. Either undo the redirect, or add a link. Harald88 00:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

To help assure you that there's no sabotage here, let me point out that it was Dan100 who redirected 1RR to ROWN, after his concerns were addressed. [1] Nearly 100% of the 1RR was merged into ROWN with the intention to centralize the different reverts "rules". If you're interested you can always view the history of the one-revert rule page (1RR was actually a shortcut, the page itself had been located at Wikipedia:One-revert rule). Note that certain parts of the 1RR made enough sense to integrate them into the larger ROWN proposal, so some of the text isn't located specifically in the one revert rule section. I hope this alleviates any concerns you may have had. Carbonite | Talk 00:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's clear - thanks Carbonite! Harald88 15:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

1RR better than 0RR

I've always been a proponent of the idea that users should revert a claim that seems a bit too unlikely when there is no source to back it up. It cannot be the duty of the vandal fighter to verify claims made by anons, especially when there are so many anons making unverified claims in edits. However, I pretty much always tell the user what I've done after I do it, and if he makes another revert (if it isn't blatant vandalism, that is), I'll make a comment on the talk page and ask for a third opinion there. However, 80-90% of the time, no second edit is made, and the claim is never attempted to be verified. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Only one person seems to be using 0RR right now... and he violates it regularly. Ashibaka tock 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that 0RR was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user and is only used by perhaps one other person, I think it may be time to make this "rule" a footnote. Carbonite | Talk 23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to have to agree, and thanks for pointing that out to me. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. Radiant_>|< 01:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

USERBOXEN!!!

Yes, I made a userbox for this. Like it?--God of War 05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

1RRThis user prefers discussing changes on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war.

0RR question

Hi.

Why is this:

"Furthermore Absolute Zero-revert rule followers will never make any reverts, they will always discuss it first and ask someone else to make the necessary edit and give the benefit of the doubt."

But if it's been discussed and it is agreed that it is OK to revert, then why can't one revert it themselves? (note that someone must not be following 0RR since someone has to do the reverting, so obviously not everyone on WP could follow a 0RR.) mike4ty4 20:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Put the following appropriately in the article

See also: Help:Reverting

• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
• If only a part of an edit is problematic, consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurusnobilis (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Conensus should be a product of the editing process, not a prerequisite for it

I think that one thing that this article hints at, but doesn't go far enough in saying is that consensus should be a part and a product of the editing process, rather than a prerequisite for it. Demanding prior approval means we don't entertain bold ideas as often as we should, and is highly discouraging to contributors, as well as unnecessarily bureaucratic.

Save reverting for vandalism, and changes that are outright harmful, and resist the temptation to revert as a form of disagreement. When you do disagree by reverting, be part of the process. Keep the bold-revert-discuss cycle going - and try to turn it into the bold-bold cycle of continuing to make bold changes from both sides towards the goal of reaching a compromise. Triona (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition of revert

The definition of "revert" given here is that a page goes back to precisely the same as a previous version. This is different from the definition in the 3RR rule, which is reverting a change in whole or in part. Even if a particular change is completely undone (by clicking "undo"), other subsequent changes might still be there so the page may not be identical to any previous version. I suggest either changing the definition of revert on this page to match that at 3RR (preferred), or else explicitly noting that the definition used here is different from the definition used there (but is there a good reason for it to be different?). --Coppertwig (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert trolls problem

Increasingly, I see reverts not for any problem in the improvements I contributed, but with the given reason that my little essay explaining them insufficient to placate the reverter. The essay appears only in the History section. Our mission with Wikipedia is a world-beating encyclopedia, not a world-beating set of edit descriptions.

Part of the burgeoning problem may be a snippet that I saw somewhere in Wikipedia's instructions incautiously encouraging reverting changes as a way to get discussions started. This section should be clarified to indicate that the reasons for the revert should be stated in full -- i.e., giving the reasons why the original article text was deemed superior. What I'm seeing instead is demands to make the little essay explaining the changes (which are in any event self-explanatory) a better essay, without saying what was lacking with it in the first place (my little essays often take up much or all of the space allowed in the little "Edit summary" field as it is).

The proliferation of these "Revert Trolls" diminishes my enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia. An effective mechanism for identifying them and shutting them down or educating them about the inadvisability of failing to follow the reverting guidelines is needed.

Since the discussion here was not getting much attention, I've created it anew elsewhere. 128.138.43.254 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR /= 1 revert per day

By analogy to WP:3RR, an uninformed user might guess that "1RR" means one revert per day. Instead it means something totally different:

• Some editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

As written, "1RR" allows a user may make as many reverts as he likes (subject to other rules, of course), but those reverts may not be re-reverted without discussion and perhaps even affirmative consensus. This concept has validity but the current name implies it is something different. Could we come up with a different name? Maybe "Don't re-revert" ("DRR")? That way "1RR" could unambiguously mean "one revert per day". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. As phrased, this isn't a 1RR rule. This is a DNRR (do not re-revert) rule. A 1RR rule would be something like, "If I make a reversion to someone's page, and someone else reverts it back, rather than revert it again, start a conversation". What's described simply isn't a 1RR rule. It's something else entirely. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Indeed. This needs fixed. –xeno^talk 20:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My 2c: I think an edit is a revert if the editor has made the same edit previously and it has been undone by another editor; the "previous" edit though does not necessarily have to be made the same day. For example: if an editor adds X to an article on May 1st and the addition is reverted, then the addition of (functionally) the same content on May 4th should count as revert since the editor knows that the edit is disputed.
I am not claiming that this is "the correct" interpretation of the current language on the WP:3RR, WP:1RR etc pages, or that it is lawerly airtight. But I think, it follows from the goal behind having revert restrictions, which is to prevent editors from repeatedly making edits that they know are disputed. This knowledge is not wiped out at the start of every 24 hour period. Abecedare (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Change:

One-revert rule

Some editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If you revert a change and someone re-reverts it, discuss it with the re-reverter rather than reverting it a second time.

Sometimes, users may be limited to one revert by the Arbitration Committee or by the community per the editing restrictions guidance.

Do not rerevert Rule

Some editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

I like this wording, and I just proposed basically the same at WT:3RR. One note, though: This is not just about voluntary choice. Some articles are under ArbCom 1RR restrictions, such as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. — Sebastian 18:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Implicit approval of "Discuss first"

I have removed the section that was encouraging reverting with the summary "discuss first" as a valid practice. It runs counter to WP:DRNC and WP:BRD which seem to have more consensus than this section did. I have archived the related discussion on this below. Gigs (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2010 (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.

---

Reverting Edits with No Talk

I just added a section for situations where a group of editors, whether rightly or wrongly, feel the need to "protect" a page by reverting non-trivial edits which are not first discussed on the talk page. I don't know whether this is exactly appropriate for the current guideline, but I thought I would put it out there for discussion. --BostonMA 23:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to no-talk edits by IP users in a page's edit history, I usually make the decision to revert instead of spending a long time trying to discover if an edit is really worthwhile. I figure the information is only as good as its verifiability, and when something non-trivial is changed without a single source, there is far too much vandalism on Wikipedia for the few reverters to spend all day verifying unsourced information. This may seem a little scattershot, but I do my best not to revert good information, and if it's in the talk page, I don't mess with it. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There really should be some penalty for "revert trolls" that discard legitimate, well-sourced statements. It's really a pitty that such editors keep wasting the time of other contributors. Being more precise: a "revert troll" is an editor that repeatedly reverts contributions that eventually make it into the article after lengthy though unnecessary discussion. My concern here is with the RC patrol making type I errors (i.e., the error of excessive skepticism, e.g., a court finding a person guilty of a crime that they did not actually commit).

Since the discussion here was not getting much attention, I've created it anew elsewhere. 128.138.43.254 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus that edits must be discussed?

I don't see a lot of precedence for the idea that it's okay for editors to demand discussion prior to edits, except on policy pages and where handed down by the Arbitration Committee. Are we sure we want to legitimize that kind of behavior given that it leads to an atmosphere of article ownership, ie "You must get my permission before you can edit this page"? --causa sui ^talk 22:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Even in periods of heavy editing, current editors cannot insist that consensus be required. That is generational bias and creates ownership. I think the point of this section is to describe a situation rather than prescribe it, but it's too easily misinterpreted in its current form. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2009 (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.

No Revert of a Revert (NROAR)

Sometimes with 1RR, a series of single reverts by a series of determined (but different) editors can still disrupt articles, and can sometimes result in a protracted edit war over a number of days, and to discussions taking place. There has been some success using a "No Revert of a Revert" policy on other articles. This policy enables an edit to be reverted, but that revert may not be subsequently reverted without consensus on the Talk page. This policy quickly exposes the most common stonewalling tactics and forces discussion to take place on the Talk page rather than through the edit history of an article. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that similar ideas have been discussed above, using terminology like Don't ReRevert (DRR), etc. It's the same principal. As it currently stands, 1RR is simply taken to mean a slimmed down version of 3RR, and I've found that it's implemented as such too. Far better to be more explicit - it'll avoid confusion and tears in the long run. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Anchor location for 1RR and 0RR

I moved the anchors for WP:1RR and WP:0RR up to the start of the section so that an editor following the shortcuts will not need to scroll to see WP:3RR and the rest of the introduction to the section. This was inspired by discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning indicating that this essay can lead to confusion. Please fix it if you have a better idea. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I tried to do that last year, but some wiseacre reverted me to test how many times I would revert him. All part of the Wikipedia silliness. James470 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The current 1RR text is broken. 1RR is just like 3RR, except with a limit of 1. The current text ties it to the original revert. This is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If 1RR is going to be used as a term in ArbCom judgements and such like, it ought to be defined formally in some policy, not just in an essay like this one.--Kotniski (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Which I have done, by creating a new policy section, to which the shortcuts WP:0RR and WP:1RR now point. (Please check the wording.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks good to me William M. Connolley (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Driving away editors

It's important to note that reversion has an impact beyond just risking edit wars. More specifically, reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia, and unfortunately not as dramatically evidenced as the spate of mutually negating edits resulting from an edit war. Perhaps this hazard of reverting is worth noting on the project page. ENeville (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You should note that on the project page. However, it is almost certain that someone will revert you the next minute, and the idiot won't even realize he's proving your point. Such is Wikipedia, nothing but a battleground. Eventually, all editors who actually know stuff will be driven away, and the remaining morons will have to create artificial intelligence robots with whom to do battle. James470 (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I added it, let's see if it gets reverted Bhny (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

... on the grounds that someone else might disagree

Proportion of useful information in Wikipedia essays and guidelines

This is clearly an improvement, but it still seems like instruction creep to me. I've been around for quite a while, and I can't think of any situation in which this advice would have outweighed the cost of hundreds of people having to read it. Are there any examples for where this would really make a difference? — Sebastian 09:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to experience this from time to time - particularly at pages that have taken on some kind of "hallowed" status, like policies and guidelines - people seem to think that every tiny wording tweak needs to be discussed first, and will revert them even if they don't seem to have any personal objection to them. (Of course, having the caution written into this essay is no guarantee that it will have any effect on anyone's behaviour, but it seems just as valid as the other points that are made here.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. Quite to the contrary: If anything, we should rather encourage people to be more conservative. Because I'm asking for real examples, I just looked at the recent history or WP:U (which is just the first guideline that came to mind that might conceivably called "hallowed"). Last month, we had 10 non-bot edits, of which only two refer to the talk page. Not a single one has been reverted, even though one could easily disagree with some of them. — Sebastian 10:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, that's how it should be - no-one disagreed with them, so time and goodwill wasn't wasted by people reverting them, insisting they be discussed on the talk page, and then it turning out there were no substantial arguments against the change. But on other occasions some people have a tendency to revert as a knee-jerk reaction to something they think someone else might object to (or for some similar non-substantial reason - you never know what someone's real motivation is).--Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether those edits are or are not improvements is a different question; here is not the place to discuss that. I only looked at that page to find an example what you meant by "[reversion because of] hallowed status". Since neither of us so far has bee able to find any such example, despite our best efforts, it is obvious that such examples are hard to come by.

Conversely, examples for why we need to fight instruction creep are very easy to find; this very addition itself is one. After all that has been said here, it seems obvious to me that the evidence speaks clearly against the inclusion, so I will remove it one last time and then disengage. If you insist on reinserting it, I will not remove it anymore. We both are well-intended volunteers here with much better to do than quibble here. We have many interests beyond this essay and I don't want either of us to waste any more time on this. — Sebastian 17:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

Rejected attempt to alter this advice

This attempt was rejected in connection with the editor's tendentious abuse of the close paraphrasing banner at Materialism, see Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing#Reversion of change to milder problems template and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Can quotation marks inside quotations within quotations be altered?.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Preventing degradation through entropy

I am concerned by the new section Preventing degradation through entropy, added by User:Boundlessly. It includes the quote "Don't make the edit in the first place unless it's necessary" in support of its position, but offers no link, only referring to this Talk page, which doesn't seem helpful for those who seek to understand the logic of the guideline. Most importantly, however, it seems to directly contradict the spirit of WP by discouraging contribution. It runs counter to Wikipedia:Be bold, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I would further note the irony in Boundlessly having reverted an edit on this project page, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, and accomanying it with the comment "The link is intentional by an older wiser previous editor." This seems to betray a presumptuous superiority, which again seems counter to the ethos necessary for a vital WP. ENeville (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with deleting the section. It's off-topic. Also, the "older wiser" editor was actually an anonymous IP wrongly adding a link to a header[[2]] Bhny (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been a few months and I am removing this section. Critically, it still offers no criteria for assessing whether the preceding or following edit is appropriate, so it doesn't illuminate the propriety of reversion. ENeville (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

point, please

This essay does not seem to conform to its title. The title states what sounds to me like good advice: revert only when necessary. But the body of the essay never actually gives that advice. I think it ought to, and in somewhat more detail than the title. The current lead makes it an article about how editors tend to avoid edit wars. The current body then strays from that to advise against edit warring and to give reasons one might avoid reverting.

My observation is mostly one about the need for a better lead and better organization, but there's a substantial issue as well: is reverting only to be avoided in the context of an edit war, or should one avoid the very first revert, giving deference to another editor who has taken the time to make an affirmative edit? Is it OK to revert an edit one finds unnecessary, even if one doesn't find it harmful?

I'd be happy to take a run at making the essay have a clear point, but I wonder whether that point should be 1) revert only when necessary; 2) don't create an edit war; or 3) here are some ideas on the use of reversion in Wikipedia. The current article seems to straddle these three.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I did it. There's a lot more work to do than I thought to make all the essays on reverting consistent and readable, but I hope at least to make this the center of advice on when reversion are and are not appropriate.

I plan to keep working on the reversion essays, a section or two at a time.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Difference between Zero-revert rule and Don't re-revert

What is the distinction intended to be? Is it specifically the lack of an exception for "obvious vandalism" in the latter? (Existing discussions on this talk page weren't of much help.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The distinction is that the zero revert rule applies to all reversions whereas "don't re-revert" applies only to re-reversions. Example: The Israel article says the capital is Jerusalem. John edits it to say Tel Aviv. Mary considers changing it back to Jerusalem, which would be a reversion. 0RR says Mary should not do that without discussing it first. Don't re-revert doesn't apply because John's edit is not a reversion. But let's assume Mary is not following 0RR, so she goes ahead and changes it back to Jerusalem, thus reverting John's edit. John now is faced with the decision of whether to change it to Tel Aviv again. Such an edit would be a re-revert, so both 0RR and "don't re-revert" are relevant. John would refrain if he is following either of the two policies.

Probably the reason vandalism isn't mentioned in "don't re-revert" is that it would be next to impossible for a reversion to be obvious vandalism. Hmm, I suppose a vandal might revert someone's reversion of obvious vandalism, and that reversion would be obvious vandalism. Maybe that should be covered, but maybe it's just common sense and shouldn't muddy up an essay.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I didn't read carefully enough, despite my effort. Sorry for any inconvenience. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If you made an effort and still didn't get the point, the essay has to take some of the blame.

I don't know exactly where the text lost you, but I guessed and made a small change to the section that will possibly make the point less missable in the future. I classified the 3 rules by total number of reversions: 0 (zero-revert rule), 1 (don't re-revert) and 2 (one-revert rule). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions against systematic unnecessary reverts?

So what sanctions can be brought against editors who are doing harm through lots of unnecessary reverts? Fgnievinski (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• The same as what can be brought at editors doing a lot of unnecessary edits (the operational term here being "unnecessary", of course): you can report them at ANI and, if justified and the editor doesn't modify there behavior, they can be blocked for disruptive editing. --Randykitty (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Super Ironic Revert on This Project Page

This is just way too funny! On a essay discouraging reversions an instant complete revert was made to this new section I composed encouraging editors to avoid the "fast and dirty" revert just because it is easier than trying to contribute content. The revert was by an editor who has never edited on this project page before, within a few hours of my posting it.[3] Anyone interested in trying to apply WP:PRESERVE principles to my edit, as opposed to blanket reversion?--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps after you have a robust understanding of WP:AGF, which is policy and not an essay, then you will understand why your addition here is inappropriate.--Adam in MO Talk 18:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I read WP:AGF as also discouraging reverts and encouraging WP:PRESERVE. Accusing me of lacking a "robust understanding" of policy and of making an "inappropriate" contribution to this essay does not reflect goodfaith toward me or my edits. Yours and Dominus' efforts to discourage and revert my edits are not well grounded.[4]--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, WP:PRESERVE in particular focuses on the article namespace. However, I agree that due to the relations with AGF, the general principle applies more broadly. Also, there is a higher standard for essays in project (Wikipedia) namespace compared to user namespace, so I am neutral on the inclusion of the content in question. It may help to draft "Reverting is lazy" as a separate essay in your userspace.

As for the shortcut WP:BAD-REVERT, the hyphen looks a little strange/nonstandard, but I have no strong objections to the existence of a shortcut. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If an editor continually inserts unsourced or poorly sourced material and then complains when it's reverted, s/he is the one being lazy and inconsiderate. By editing here, we all accept the responsibility of complying with this site's content policies. Shirking those responsibilities (by writing poorly sourced, tendentious, or unencyclopedic material) creates more work for everyone else. If an editor is perceived as acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, then other editors should step in to help preserve and improve his or her contributions rather than revert them reflexively. But if an editor is perceived as editing tendentiously, or ignoring this site's content policies after having been made aware of them, or consistently refusing to listen to any and all feedback, then others will be less likely to extend that courtesy. These sorts of edits are necessarily, and appropriately, reverted, and it's inappropriate to blame everyone else when this happens. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between WP:AGF and the idea that reverting is lazy.

The edit summary for the edit to remove the "reverting is lazy" section doesn't mention good faith; it just says it's a rant not based on Wikipedia policy. I don't see that as a reason to remove the section either.

Also, I read the "reverting is lazy" section in the context of the point of this essay, which is not that every reversion is wrong, but that many of them are. So when I read it, I did not think it was saying that every reversion is lazy. I think it's clear that the section refers to the kind of revert that was done against the section, not the kind referred to by MastCell above.

Finally, I'd like to add that I agree with the sentiment in the section, and it is a reason I have often identified myself that reverting is to be avoided. A revert done with the "undo" button is particularly lazy, and if I had my way, people would be forbidden to use that button except against bad faith edits. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

GBY2 is angry that many of his additions have, rightfully, been reverted in a particular topic area over the last couple weeks hence the implication of his rant is clear and the factors surrounding the issue do indeed make it a rant. Capeo (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No matter what the OP's alleged motivation is, this essay probably ought to mention WP:PRESERVE fairly prominently. If you don't like the way that this editor did it, then perhaps you should make a bold effort to add it yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor's motivation is interesting, but doesn't have any bearing on whether the section should be in the essay. And if a reader has to know the factors surrounding the issue to recognize it as an inappropriate rant, then it isn't one. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't angry. I'm still not. I came across this essay researching revert advice and thought I would add insights from my own reflections. I do wonder about the God-like power which allows some editors to be able to read my mind and report on my emotions and motivations. I hope they will find better uses for their time.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If the main objection is that the word "lazy" is seen as too harsh by some people, I'd suggest changing the subsection title to something else, maybe something like "Think twice before reverting." Similar massaging could be done to help keep editors who delete a lot from feeling accused of laziness.-GodBlessYou2 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And now we have you forcing your piece into the essay, as seen here. You stated in that edit summary, "This is being discussed on talk and has been edited by a couple editors. PRESERVE and GoodFaith are both part of policy." What you stated in that edit summary is not a valid reason to re-add that addition in the least. You are the one proposing that we accept your version, and a few editors disagree with it. This means that, if going by WP:BRD and/or WP:STATUSQUO, you should have left your version out. It is up to you to convince us to accept your version; it is not up to us to convince you why we don't want it (though we should state why we don't want it). We don't need your "reverting is lazy" addition to mention the WP:Preserve policy. And reverting is not automatically a violation of WP:Assume good faith. Flyer22 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I accidentally deleted your "05:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)" post; it was sort of a WP:Edit conflict where I wasn't automatically notified that it was. But, as you can see, I restored your post. And, yes, I saw this change you made to your version. Flyer22 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So how is status quo determined in the event two other editors have edited a contribution?how long after an edit has been made, as with my original edit. Fgnievinski[5]Giraffedata,[6],Vsmith[7]. Should you not have limited your revet to Vsmith's version to discuss at that stage? Deleting the content of three editors collaborating on refining a contribution via wp:preserve would seem to demand a lot of explanation as to why the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. You seem to be arguing that even if a number of editors are supporting the edit and working at refining it, a single editor can argue status quo and block the edit until he or she finally agrees that enough editors disagree with him or her that he or she will finally back down.

Regarding your original complaint in your first revert, staring "essays are not policies," isn't it true that this essay is precisely about advice regarding good practice in using policies? Moreover, how is the introductory section "reverting drives away editors" appropriate but the section proposed by me and edited by others not appropriate. Both try to describe, as nicely reorganized by Giraffedata as "Reasons to Avoid Reverting"[8]–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Naw ... the change you have been edit warring to get into the essay has the appearance of trying to change the playing field to make it easier to push an unpopular (wikiwise) pov into various actual articles --- has been soundly rejected. And I don't mind that my edit was reverted - it's just an essay and not wiki-policy. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

GodBlessYou2, I'm not sure how to reply to your response to me above, and I don't feel like responding to all of that. I will simply state that I stand by what I commented on above, and that WP:Preserve is about article content (not essay content) and that I don't mind WP:Preserve being mentioned in the essay at hand. As you know, WegianWarrior was the latest person to revert your content. Perhaps WegianWarrior will weigh in on this matter to let us know why that's the case. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"So how is status quo determined"?

I believe you will find that this is one of the many Wikipedia:Irregular verbs on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone here would like to try writing that entry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Short version? In addition to what Flyer22 stated in his edit summary ("Either way, this addition should be discussed on the talk page"), the fact that GNU2 seemed to change this essay and then use the changed version as support for his view in a discussion on a different talk page. To top it off, the old version reads better and is more in line with policies and guidelines in my opinion. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WegianWarrior, I'm female, but thanks for commenting. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That an essay was changed in order to use the changed version as support for someone's view in a discussion on a different talk page is not a legitimate reason for a reversion. A reversion should be intended to improve the page, not to affect some use of the page or punish the prior editor or make a statement about the proper use of a Wikipedia edit. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reasons to avoid Reverting

WegianWarrior has opposed the additional material that I have proposed that has been suggested or altered by myself, and Fgnievinski[9]Giraffedata,[10],Vsmith[11][12].

To address concerns that the term "lazy" was applied to reverting without an effort to follow WP:PRESERVE, I changed the title and langauge of the new proposed subsection as follows:

Reverting is less productive then PRESERVING

Fixing a contribution using the steps described in editing policy takes some time and effort. As a result, some editors are tempted to skip past the steps recommended to preserve the contributions of others and move immediately toward a revert. It is easy to claim justification for nearly any revert, for example, with just a quick claim that the ONUS is on the contributing editor to convince the reverting editor why he or she should not be an obstacle to the edit. Although that may not appear to be a collaborative attitude, see the bold edit–revert–discuss cycle for article improvement.

Demolition is easier, and faster, than construction. But our goal here is to collaboratively grow articles. And collaboration requires both (a) encouraging other editors to contribute and (b)actively looking for ways to incorporate every bit of potentially useful information others may contribute, even if their first drafts are way off base.

So, easier to tear down than to build up, taking the time to practice Preserve techniques both encourages other editors by showing WP:Goodfaith in their contributions and a desire to help work them into the article and also helps to save time in the long run by reducing conflicts.

Your comments and suggestions are welcome. I think it is important to encourage editors to make an effort to preserve as much material as possible instead of rushing to an immediate revert.

Looking at the lead of WP:BRD, I also think that the use of the word "immediately" in the recommendation "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement," contradicts the very next sentence. "Consider reverting only when necessary." And the authorization to revert content just because you don't have time to research or rewrite the contribution "immediately" can be turned into a license that allows reverting even when it is not necessary. Surely, most problems should be tagged immediately to invite other editors to fix it, but the suggestion to revert just because the reader/editor does not have the time, knowledge, or ability to "immediately fix" the issue is subject to abuse and certainly shows lack of sufficient respect for the goodfaith of both the original contributing editor and other editors who are in a position to fix the tagged concern.

In short, outside of vandalism, I think that before a revert, editors should make efforts to WP:PRESERVE and if they don't have the time to preserve content, they should tag the contribution so other editors can get into the discussion, saving revert for a step that generally follows tagging and a bit of time for others to address the concern. This essay seems to be a good place to describe such alternatives.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

More policy that should be cited:Achieving neutrality: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." In other words, any NPOV problems with the proposed new section should be addressed by rewriting it per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your change because it misrepresents the editing policy. Edits against policy can and should be removed. Edits that introduce undue weight should be removed. --Adam in MO Talk 03:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't find any misrepresentation of the editing policy. I think if one is going to bother to explain an edit on the talk page (as Adam in MO does here, and is the right thing to do in this case because there's an actual dispute going on), one should actually give enough detail so it can be discussed. What is the misrepresentation? I also don't understand the undue weight statement.

As I've said before, I wholeheartedly support the concept of reverting only when necessary. I think GodBlessYou2's latest attempt at describing one reason for that practice is significantly better than the first and an improvement to the essay. I vehemently disagree with the opposing view in the other essay, "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, ..." because I think an edit should have to harm the article to be reverted. Demanding the older one of two equally good versions of the article stinks of narrowmindedness and article ownership and is not a custom that encourages people to edit. Like GodBlessYou2, I also take issue with "cannot be immediately fixed" because it puts lovers of the status quo even more at an advantage. I would probably agree with "harms the article and cannot be easily fixed" Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In terms of quality, there are no "neutral" edits. All edits either improve the article or degrade it. Edits that introduce undue weight should be reverted until consensus is built. And of course contentious, unsourced BLP edits should be reverted until they can be sourced properly. I agree that some edits can be fixed and should be fixed by the editors that see them, but using preserve as rational to introduce undue bias into an article, then placing the onus on others to prove your wrong is a bad strategy for an accurate encyclopedia.--Adam in MO Talk 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find many editors who believe two versions of an article can be equally good. And when an editor sees an edit that changes an article between two such versions, the editor must decide whether or not to revert, and I've seen it go both ways. I have on many occasions made an edit that someone said was unnecessary as the article was as good before as after. In some of those cases, the editor claiming that elected to revert, and in others, not to revert. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The goal of an encyclopedia is to encompass a summaries of all human knowledge. Therefore, while articles must be manageable in size, there should be a natural bias toward including new material. As a general rule, I think any edit that adds (a) a new reliable source or (a) relevant material not yet covered in the article that is reliably sourced to an existing or new source is a movement toward improving the article. The edit may need to be condensed, moved, or otherwise altered to make it an optimum improvement, but the bias should be toward expanding articles and giving those using wikipedia to start their research more material to work with. (Imagine a high school student, starting her research who knows she can't use Wikipedia as a source but also knows that it is a great place for finding a list of sources relevant to the topic.)

Given that perspective, I agree with Bryan that reverting should not be done unless the article is made worse. If the contribution brings something new to the article it is in the direction of doing good and efforts should be made to refine the contribution until it is clearly a definite improvement.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. But part of making sure that the edit introduces "relevant material" is making sure that the information reflects a the weight and balance given in the sources. One must represent the consensus in a topic area not just inject new information. We must address the preponderance of the sources.--Adam in MO Talk 02:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Then shouldn't this essay include information about PRESERVE and keeping sources along the lines I have tried to introduce? Why do you revert my edits instead of trying to improve them.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Because the thrust of you edits seem to ignore weight concerns.--Adam in MO Talk 16:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly I disagree. I'm not advocating to ignore weight concerns. But even if you think my edit here does not adequately address weight concerns, why not edit the contribution in a way that addresses weight concerns in your own words? In short, can you find some way to edit the article that clarifies the issues you are concerned about without deleting the content that I am concerned about? --GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added wp:preserve to the see also list. I think that information is best put there. Everything else of substance in your edit was already covered. I hope this brings this to a close. Cheers.--Adam in MO Talk 05:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Needs better wikification, and generalization

Virtually nothing in this is linked, not to policies, guidelines, or other essays.

I have yet to see a single thing in this page that only pertains to "articles", so that would should be replaced with "pages". The essay fails in its purpose if any system WP:GAMEr feels entitled to ignore every word of it because they're editing a template or a guideline or a portal or ....

After some improvement, it may be worth trying to merge other reversion-related essays into this one, though doing so now would be premature because the above problems make this page look like a draft instead of a stable essay that's been around 3 years already.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable, unacceptable

I don't like the headings "Acceptable reversions" and "Unacceptable reversions" in this Wikipedia essay. It looks too much like a guideline or a policy, and these sections are not without controversy. The headings would be better as "Good reasons to revert" and "undesirable reversions" or something like that. I will make the change at some point if there are no objections here. 18:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but I hope you will use parallel construction (e.g. Good reasons to revert / Bad reasons to revert) or "Desirable Reversions / Undesirable reversions". We're trying to make a point by contrasts. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You got it. Thanks. -Jordgette [talk] 23:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't single out bias and undue weight as revert-worthy

I removed

 Edits that introduce bias or undue weight  should be reverted until consensus is built.

because it followed,

 ... a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement.

and I don't see any reason that bias and undue weight need to be called out specially. They are just two of many, many problems in an article that need to be corrected, and editors should use the same standards in deciding with a reversion is appropriate as with any of the others: incorrect facts, non-notable material, unreadable language, bad grammar, etc. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with that deletion. Introducing bias into an article doesn't necessarily make it clearly worse. Another editor might agree with the tendentious edit or believe that it clarifies something. I think the wording should be restored. -Jordgette [talk] 17:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)